Petitioner claims that the AO has wrongly computed the Total Income of his company

Last updated: 17 June 2021
Quick Summary
Sumitomo Corporation has appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the assessment of its total income for the 2013-14 financial year. The company disputes an addition of over Rs 3.8 crore made by the Assessing Officer, arguing that income from supplies to Maruti Suzuki India Limited should not be taxable in India. Sumitomo contends it has no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India and that title and supply of equipment passed in Japan, thus income did not accrue in India.

Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 31/1/2017 passed by DCIT, Circle (1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C (13) of the Income Tax, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

Citation :
ITA 1881/DEL/2017

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. Typographical Error in the SCN Cannot Be a Shield for the Assessee Who Participated in the Proceedings Without Raising Any Objection
  2. Penalty on partners under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act upheld where complicity in fake invoicing and hawala-linked ITC fraud stands established
  3. Forest Development Tax Demand, Collection and Refund Subject to Final Outcome of Pending Cases
  4. SC : Extended Limitation Cannot Be Invoked Where Department Was Aware of Valuation Facts
  5. SC : Selling Shares While in Possession of UPSI Constitutes Insider Trading Even if No Profit Is Made
  6. SC : Laser Imagers Compatible with Machines Under Different Tariff Headings Classifiable Under CTH 9033
  7. Education Consultancy Services to Foreign Universities Not Intermediary Services; Refund of IGST on Export of Services Allowed
  8. Penalty Cannot Be Confirmed Beyond What is Specified in Statutory Form GST DRC-01
  9. Non-Supply of Field Visit Report Vitiates Rejection of Revocation Application
  10. Alternative Remedy before GSTAT to be Exhausted Despite Allegation that Adjudication Travelled Beyond SCN

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member sriram devensriram devenPro Member TitusTitusPro Member Raj GuptaRaj GuptaPro Member ARUN KUMAR & ASSOCIATESARUN KUMAR & ASSOCIATESPro Member ajay khannaajay khanna
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category