CIT vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

ITA/904/2011HC DelhiDLHC01072815201107 December 2017Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi, in light of its order passed on the same day in ITA No. 250 of 2005, answered the framed question of law in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This means the Tribunal's finding that duty drawback had not accrued and become payable to the assessee, and therefore could not be included in the taxable income for AYs 1994-95, 1997-98, and 1998-99, was upheld. The reasoning is based on the precedent set in the related case. The operative direction is that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, filed an appeal against an order dated 29th October 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 663/Del/2008 concerning Assessment Year (AY) 1997-98. The High Court of Delhi admitted the appeal on 10th August 2011 and framed specific questions of law. The dispute revolves around whether duty drawback had accrued and become payable to the assessee, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., and thus includible in its taxable income for AYs 1994-95, 1997-98, and 1998-99. The High Court's decision in this appeal was to be made in light of its order in a related case, ITA No. 250 of 2005.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that on account of duty drawback had not accrued and become payable to the assessee and cannot be included in the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95, 1997-98, 1998-99? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee. However, the framing of the question implies the assessee would have argued that duty drawback had not accrued or become payable, thus not includible in taxable income. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's appeal suggests they contended that the duty drawback had accrued and become payable to the assessee and should be included in the taxable income for the specified assessment years.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 904/2011

Page 1 of 2

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +

ITA No. 904/2011 Reserved on: 11th November 2017

Decided on: 7th December, 2017

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates.

versus

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

..... Respondent Through : Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Ms. Roopali Gupta and Mr. Bhupesh Pathak, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R %

07.12.2017 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 29th October 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No.663/Del/2008 for the AY 1997-98.

While admitting this appeal on 10th August 2011, the following questions of law were framed for consideration:

ITA No. 904/2011

Page 2 of 2

“Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that on account of duty drawback had not accrued and become payable to the assessee and cannot be included in the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95,1997-98, 1998-99?”

In view of the order passed by this Court today in ITA No. 250 of 2005, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.

ITA No. 904 of 2011 is accordingly dismissed.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. DECEMBER 07, 2017 Rm

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →