GE INDIA INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LTD.,GURGAON V. DCIT, NEW DELHI

MA 83/DEL/2021

AI Insights

The case involves GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., which filed a miscellaneous application against the order of the ITAT concerning the Assessment Year 2011-12. The application sought a recall of the Tribunal's earlier order which had denied various adjustments related to working capital and comparability for different divisions of the company. The Tribunal had previously remanded the issues back to the AO/TPO for a fresh assessment but had not addressed certain adjustments claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal's recent decision acknowledges the oversight and directs the AO/TPO to consider these adjustments in the reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780240 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIT JOLLY

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘I-2’ : NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.83/DEL/2021 (in ITA No.1684/DEL/2016) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Building No.7A, 4th Floor, New Delhi. DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Sector 25A, Gurgaon. (PAN : AAACG4901D) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate Smt. Rashi Khanna, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.09.2025 Date of Order : 06.10.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM : 1. This misc. application is filed by the Applicant/Assessee against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1684/Del/2016 dated 08.10.2020 for Assessment Year 2011-12 for recalling of the impugned order dated 08.10.2020. 2. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing, erecting and commissioning services Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.83/Del/2021 for electrical installations, manufacturing and trading of electrical components (Power Control Division), manufacturing and sale of specialty chemicals (Water and Process Technologies division), manufacturing and trading of critical locomotive spares (Transportation division), wind turbine generators (Wind division), Marketing support services to various divisions; and also providing after sale services, providing training to employees of GE Group. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee’s case was referred to TPO and TPO has passed its order proposing TP adjustments. Accordingly, the AO passed draft assessment order dated 26.03.2015, accordingly enhanced the income of the assessee. Against which assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. DRP. Ld. DRP has passed its directions dated 29.12.2015 wherein on the ground of working capital adjustment in various issues, it has upheld the order of the AO. It is also brought to our notice that ld. DRP rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish any details of the working capital adjustment claimed by it. Against the final assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and ITAT has adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee with regard to Ground No.7 relating to Power Control Division and raised a specific ground on non-granting of comparability adjustment for varying levels of working Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.83/Del/2021 capital employed by the assessee vis-à-vis comparable companies. Similarly, in ground no.9 Transport Division at para 9.2, assessee has raised specific ground for not providing comparability adjustment on account of higher import component. Similarly, at ground no.11, assessee has raised ground on Water and Processed Technology Division wherein working capital adjustment was not allowed to the assessee business comparable companies. Further at para 12 regarding marketing support services, it has raised a specific ground no.12.6 for denying the adjustment on account of differential in working capital employed by the comparable companies vis-à-vis assessee. It was submitted before us that the coordinate Bench while adjudicating ground no.7.3 had denied the working capital adjustment with the observation that since we have directed for allowance of higher raw material consumption and under utilization of capacity, we do not find it necessary to dwell into the issue of working capital adjustment. With regard to the above submissions, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same with the submission that it amounts review of the order. 4. Considered the submissions of both the parties and we are in agreement with the ld. DR that coordinate Bench has specifically addressed the issue and denied the working capital adjustment with regard to Ground No.7.3, Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.83/Del/2021 therefore, we are not inclined to review the same. In the result, the issue raised by the assessee relating to ground no.7.3 is accordingly dismissed. 5. With regard to ground no.9.2 wherein it was submitted that assessee has contested not granting of comparability adjustment on account of higher import content. Similarly for ground no.11.2, it was submitted that working capital adjustment was not granted by the coordinate Bench. Similarly with regard to ground no.12.6, it was denied for adjustment on account of differential in working capital employed by the comparable companies vis-à-vis appellant. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we observe that the coordinate Bench has observed that all the issues raised by the assessee relating to four divisions/schemes were remanded back to the file of AO/TPO to redo the adjustment afresh. With regard to digital energy division, coordinate Bench has given specific direction that the same may be followed wherein the coordinate Bench has specifically not allowed the working capital adjustment. With regard to other divisions i.e. power controlled division, transportation division, water and processing technology for trading activity or manufacturing activities, the coordinate Bench remanded the issue back to the file of AO/TPO to redo the assessment afresh. We direct the AO/TPO to redo the assessment based on the directions of the coordinate Bench. At the same time, since the Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.83/Del/2021 issues are being directed to redo the assessment afresh, we direct the AO/TPO to consider the submissions of the assessee along with the specific directions of the coordinate Bench and also we notice that the coordinate Bench inadvertently missed to consider working capital adjustment as well as adjustment on account of higher import content employed by the assessee vis-à-vis the comparable companies relating to other divisions. Therefore, we direct AO/TPO to consider the above aspects while redo the adjustments afresh after giving proper opportunity to the assessee. 7. In the result, the misc. application filed by the assessee is partly allowed with the abovesaid direction. Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of October, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 06.10.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "