COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 519 / 2010HC Delhi26 May 20101 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal's decisions on various issues are under challenge. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law concerning the accrual of duty drawback, deletion of customs duty, addition for excessive raw material consumption, allowance of MODVAT, depreciation on enhanced liability, and disallowance under Section 40A(i).

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns the assessment year 1999-2000 and involves several disputed additions to the assessee's taxable income. These include duty drawback, customs duty on inventory, excessive consumption of raw materials, MODVAT credit, depreciation on enhanced liability, and disallowance under Section 40A(i).

What were the issues?

The key legal issues revolve around the correct treatment of duty drawback, customs duty, raw material consumption, MODVAT credit, and depreciation on enhanced liability for tax purposes. The applicability of Section 40A(i) is also a significant point of contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 40A(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 38 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #2 . ITA 519/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate . versus . . MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocates . . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR . . O R D E R 26.05.2010 . The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that Rs.24,92,33,446/- on account of duty drawback had not accrued and become payable to the asseessee and cannot be included in the Taxable income of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1999- 2000 ? . . . 2. Whether learned ITAT/CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,48,86,451/- on account of Customs Duty on closing inventory with vendors? . [ITA 519/10] Page 1 of 2 . . . 3. Whether Tribunal is right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition of Rs.33,39,91,012/- on account of excessive consumption of raw material and inputs ? . 4. Whether learned ITAT/CIT(A) was justified in allowing MODVAT on input difference at Rs.46,00,00,000/- on account of excessive unexplained consumption of material and when payment partakes the character of penalty ? . 5. Whether learned ITAT/CIT(A) was justified in allowing claim of Rs.36,09, 047/- out of RS.75,19,975/- on account of depreciation on enhanced liability when the liability arises when assessee agrees to pay the duty? . 6. Whether learned ITAT/CIT(A) was justified in allowing disallowance under Section 40A(i) at Rs.4,19,09,113/- in view of the decision of the case of Chemloor Drug Ltd. V. CIT : 70 TTJ 936 ? . Issue notice. Mr. Ajay Vohra has already entered appearance on behalf of the assessee. Let the appeal be linked with ITA Nos. 250/05, 976/05 17/06 and 638/09 and set out for final hearing on 13th September, 2010. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MADAN B. LOKUR, J MAY 26, 2010 ?v? . [ITA 519/10] Page 2 of 2 .

More judgments on Section 40A(i)

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →