CIT vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

ITA/905/2011HC DelhiDLHC01072886201107 December 2017Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of its decision in ITA No. 250 of 2005, answered the framed question of law in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal's finding that the duty drawback had not accrued and become payable to the assessee and therefore could not be included in the taxable income for the assessment years 1994-95, 1997-98, and 1998-99 was upheld. The reasoning relies on a prior decision of the same court on a similar issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against an order dated 29th October 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning Assessment Years (AYs) 1994-95, 1997-98, and 1998-99. The appeal was admitted by the High Court on 10th August 2011, and specific questions of law were framed for consideration. The dispute pertains to the taxability of duty drawback amounts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that on account of duty drawback, the amount had not accrued and become payable to the assessee and, therefore, cannot be included in the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment years 1994-95, 1997-98, and 1998-99? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the duty drawback had not accrued and become payable, and thus could not be included in taxable income. Revenue's contention: The Revenue contended that the duty drawback should be included in the taxable income of the assessee for the specified assessment years.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA No. 905/2011

Page 1 of 2

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

ITA No. 905/2011 Reserved on: 11th November 2017

Decided on: 7th December, 2017

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ....Appellant Through: Mr. 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

JUDGMENT %

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.664/Del/2008 for the AY 1998-99.

While admitting this appeal on 10th August 2011, the following questions

ITA No. 905/2011

Page 2 of 2

of law were framed for consideration: “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 decision of 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. 905 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 →