M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 287/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 October 2025AY 2011-12126 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds on various issues. Regarding disallowance of R&D Cess paid (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14), it followed ITAT orders for earlier years, noting the High Court's non-admission of department appeals and Supreme Court's confirmation. For Provisional Liability - Expenditure on account of FPI-OE Components (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14), the Tribunal referred to its decision for AY 2011-12, allowing the grounds in favor of the assessee. Similarly, disallowance of CSR expenditure (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) was decided in favor of the assessee, referencing the decision for AY 2011-12. The issue of Sales Tax Exemption as a revenue receipt (AY 2013-14) was allowed, following Delhi High Court orders confirmed by the Supreme Court, and also referencing a High Court order for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Income from trading in mutual funds/shares was treated as business income, not capital gains, and allowed as per directions in AY 2011-12. Disallowance of purchases from M/s Suzuki Motor Corporation on account of non-deduction of tax was allowed in favor of the assessee. Transfer Pricing (TP) - royalty issues were decided in favor of the assessee, referencing AY 2011-12. Credit of TDS certificates was allowed for statistical purposes. Charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234 was decided in favor of the assessee for statistical purposes. Foreign Tax Credit (AY 2013-14) was directed to be allowed after due verification, as it was denied without reason. Additional grounds raised in AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 were dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard cross-appeals filed by Maruti Suzuki India Limited (assessee) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) (revenue) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The appeals challenged assessment orders passed by the DCIT under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pursuant to directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessee's appeals contested various additions and disallowances made by the assessing officer, including those related to Section 43B, Section 14A, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), Foreseen Price Increase (FPI), sharing of resources, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure, and purchases from Suzuki Motor Corporation. The revenue's appeal is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide several questions of law and mixed law and fact. The primary issues revolved around the legality of the assessment order, the DRP's directions, and specific disallowances made by the assessing officer. 1. Whether the assessment order, completed based on DRP directions without independent consideration of objections, is illegal (Section 144C(5)). 2. Whether the assessing officer erred in not reducing Rs. 117,11,24,049/- offered to tax under Section 43B, despite DRP directions to verify its non-deduction in preceding years. 3. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 19,20,34,841/- under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, was justified without satisfying pre-conditions under Section 14A(2) and (3) (Assessee's contention). 4. Whether the weighted deduction of Rs. 249,57,70,000/- under Section 35(2AB) for R&D expenditure at the Rohtak Unit was wrongly disallowed. 5. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 36,27,43,195/- on account of Foreseen Price Increase (FPI) was erroneous, considering the consistent accounting method and contractual understanding (Assessee's contention). 6. Whether the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 6,86,58,370/- for alleged sharing of resources with group companies was justified. 7. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 15,20,00,000/- for CSR expenditure was erroneous, and if capital in nature, whether depreciation under Section 32 should be allowed. The Assessee argued that the assessment was illegal, the DRP failed to consider objections, and prior appellate orders favored them. They contended that the Section 43B deduction should be allowed, Section 14A disallowance was incorrect, Section 35(2AB) deduction was valid, FPI was a legitimate accrued liability, resource sharing disallowance was arbitrary and tax-neutral, and CSR expenditure was for business purposes. The Revenue's specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(1),Section 144C(5),Section 43B,Section 14A,Section 35(2AB),Section 32,Section 35(1)(iv),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234,Section 90,Section 90A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate, Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate, Ms. Somya Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department, Shri Kalrav Melhotra, Advocate, Ms. Kannu Priya, Advocate
Hearing: 31.07.2025

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.287/DEL/2016
ITA No.901/DEL/2017
ITA No.6949/DEL/2017
ITA No.1024/DEL/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MBER:

1.

The assessee and Revenue have filed cross appeals against assessment order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the DCIT, Circle 16(1), New Delhi under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 144C(1)

All 423 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →