The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S Hero Motocorp Ltd
High Court
31 Oct 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S Hero Motocorp Ltd
Date of order
31 Oct 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S Hero Motocorp Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Having regard to the above position, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises; the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA 915/2017
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.
%
versus
M/S HERO MOTOCORP LTD.
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha with Ms. Shivani Khandekar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
O R D E R
31.10.2017
Four questions have been urged by the Revenue in this appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1978. First and second pertain to royalty and technical guidance fee as well as model fee. The question is no longer res integra. It is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 372 ITR 481.
The third question relates to treatment of export commission which was decided recently by the Division Bench in ITA No.923/2015, decided on 08.05.2017.
The last issue pertains to allowance of additional depreciation. The ITAT, we notice, has decided the assessee’s case for another year; that decision has become final.
Having regard to the above position, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises; the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
OCTOBER 31, 2017/vikas/
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.