CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

LASCO CHEMIE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlasco Chemie Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-15(2), Delhi 10489 Kalptaru, Sadar Thana Road Motia Khan, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcl 3502 E Appellant .. Respondent

…Motor & General Finance Ltd: [2009] 184 Taxman 465 (Del) - BLB Limited vs. ACIT: [2012] 206 Taxman 37 (Del) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT: [2010] 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd: [2013] 215 Taxman 495 (Del) - JSRS Udyog Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 313 ITR 321 (Del) - Vatika Ltd. vs. ITO: [2013] 357 ITR 170 (Del) 13. In view of the above, it is submitted that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation in terms of proviso to section 147 of the Act. Re (b): There is no valid reason to believe reasons solely based on report of Investigation Wing P a g e | 9 Lasco Chemie (P) Ltd. (AY 2012-13)…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

…ssee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Modipon Ltd.: 400 ITR 1 and also covered in favour by order of the Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for:  AY 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16)  AY 1999-00 in ITA No. 31/2005 (Para 16-20)  AY 2000-01 in ITA No. 442/2005 (Para 3) He further submitted that on the aforesaid issue of PLA balance, the Department has not preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble SC against aforesaid order(s) passed by Hon’ble High Court for AYs 1999-00 and 2000-01 and the aforesaid issue, it is th…

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

…ssee submitted that this issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Modipon Ltd.: 400 ITR 1 and also covered in favour by order of the Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for:  AY 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16)  AY 1999-00 in ITA No. 31/2005 (Para 16-20)  AY 2000-01 in ITA No. 442/2005 (Para 3) He further submitted that on the aforesaid issue of PLA balance, the Department has not preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble SC against aforesaid order(s) passed by Hon’ble High Court for AYs 1999-00 and 2000-01 and the aforesaid issue, it is th…

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

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…sion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modipon Ltd.; 400 ITR 1. Further, he submitted that this issue had been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own cases of AYs 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16), AY 1999-00 reported in 406 ITR 562 (Para 16-20) and AY 2000-01 in ITA 442/2005 (Para 3). He further submitted that the Revenue had not challenged any of the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court before the Supreme Court; therefore, this issue had now attained finality. He further drew our attention to various orders of the Tribunal…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…sion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modipon Ltd.; 400 ITR 1. Further, he submitted that this issue had been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own cases of AYs 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16), AY 1999-00 reported in 406 ITR 562 (Para 16-20) and AY 2000-01 in ITA 442/2005 (Para 3). He further submitted that the Revenue had not challenged any of the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court before the Supreme Court; therefore, this issue had now attained finality. He further drew our attention to various orders of the Tribunal…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

…e before ITAT 1. Excise duty paid i.e. balance in PLA (a)Excise Duty on Vehicles (b)R&D Cess on vehicles 16,42,033/- 5,84,293/- − Covered in favour by order of this Court for: • AY 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996- 97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16) • AY 1999-00 in ITA No. 31/2005 (Para 16-20) • AY 2000-01 in ITA No. 442/2005 (Para 3) − On the aforesaid issue of PLA balance, the department has not preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against aforesaid order(s) passed by this Court for AY 1999-00 and 2000-01. − Appeal filed by the department, Yes Ye…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4 DELHI vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

…e before ITAT 1. Excise duty paid i.e. balance in PLA (a)Excise Duty on Vehicles (b)R&D Cess on vehicles 16,42,033/- 5,84,293/- − Covered in favour by order of this Court for: • AY 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996- 97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16) • AY 1999-00 in ITA No. 31/2005 (Para 16-20) • AY 2000-01 in ITA No. 442/2005 (Para 3) − On the aforesaid issue of PLA balance, the department has not preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court against aforesaid order(s) passed by this Court for AY 1999-00 and 2000-01. − Appeal filed by the department, Yes Ye…

SHANKER LAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Shanker Lal Vs Ito C/O-Sumer Garg & Co. Ward-36(1) 501A, Itl Northex Tower Delhi. A-09, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Abgpl9915J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.C.Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2025 Order

…-settled by a long line of judicial precedents viz: CIT V/s. Foramer France (264 ITR 566) (SC) (b) Hindustan Lever Limited V/s. R.B. Wadkar (268 ITR 332) (Bom) (c) Mercury Travels Limited. Vis. Dy. CIT(258 ITR 533) (Cal) (d) JSRS Udyog Limited & Ors. V/s ITO (313 ITR 321(Del) (e) Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. V/s. DDIT(E) (361 ITR 160) (Bom) (f) Grindwell Norton Ltd v ACIT (2004) 267 ITR 673 (Bom) (g) Shriram Foundry v DCIT (2012) 350 ITR 115 (Bom) (h) Sound Casting Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom) (i) Voltas Ltd v ACIT (2012) 70 DTR 433 (Bom) (j) Pr.CIT, Central-11 vs DSC Ltd. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 535 (D…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), NEW DEL;HI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

…or & General Finance Ltd.: [2009] 184 Taxman 465 (Del) - BLB Limited Vs. ACIT: [2012] 206 Taxman 37 (Del) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. Vs. ACIT: [2010] 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: [2013] 215 Taxman 494 (Del) - JSRS Udyog Ltd. Vs. ITO: [2009] 313 ITR 321 (Del) - Vatika Ltd. Vs. ITO: [2013] 357 ITR 170 (Del) 13. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO has failed to mention specific failure on the part of the assessee truly and fully disclosing the material / facts. The ld. AR stated that on the perusal of the reasons recorded, it could be seen that there is no whisper by the AO of any failure on…

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 5(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issues

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalbses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Dy. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Asst. Cit, Bses Bhawan, Cicle-5(1), Nehru Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110019 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Yamuna Power Dy. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors Vs. Acit Bses Yamuna Power Asst. Cit, Limited, Cicle-5(1), Shakti Kiran Building, Vs. New Delhi. Karkardoooma, Delhi-110092 Pan-Aagcs3187H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Gupta, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2025 O R D E R

…or & General Finance Ltd.: [2009] 184 Taxman 465 (Del) - BLB Limited Vs. ACIT: [2012] 206 Taxman 37 (Del) - D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. Vs. ACIT: [2010] 232 CTR 260 (Del) - CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: [2013] 215 Taxman 494 (Del) - JSRS Udyog Ltd. Vs. ITO: [2009] 313 ITR 321 (Del) - Vatika Ltd. Vs. ITO: [2013] 357 ITR 170 (Del) 13. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO has failed to mention specific failure on the part of the assessee truly and fully disclosing the material / facts. The ld. AR stated that on the perusal of the reasons recorded, it could be seen that there is no whisper by the AO of any failure on…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7 , NEW DELHI vs. STYLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…sion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Modipon Ltd.; 400 ITR 1. Further, he submitted that this issue had been decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee in the assessee’s own cases of AYs 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16), AY 1999-00 reported in 406 ITR 562 (Para 16-20) and AY 2000-01 in ITA 442/2005 (Para 3). He further submitted that the Revenue had not challenged any of the orders of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court before the Supreme Court; therefore, this issue had now attained finality. He further drew our attention to various orders of the Tribunal…

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. NEERAJ KUMAR SINGHAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

…ed in 264 ITR 556 (SC); Dr. Willmar Schwabe India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT & Ors., in W.P.(C) 13380/2018 judgment dated 17.05.2023 (Del); Pr.CIT vs. Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, ITA No. 1374/2018 order dated 09.12.2022 (Del); JSRS Udyog Ltd. and Ors. vs. ITO, reported in 313 ITR 321 (Del). 16. The stated position of law being abundantly clear, we do not consider it necessary to go into other aspect of legal challenge to assume jurisdiction. Having endorsed the action of the CIT(A) on lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider it necessary to examine the aspects on merits. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed…

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 672/Del/2018 (A.Y 2008-09)

…Motor & General Finance Ltd: [2009] 184 Taxman 465 (Del) • BLB Limited vs. ACIT: [2012] 206 Taxman 37 (Del) • D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. vs. ACIT: [2010] 232 CTR 260 (Del) • CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd: [2013] 215 Taxman 495 (Del) • JSRS Udyog Ltd. v. ITO: [2009] 313 ITR 321 (Del) • Vatika Ltd. vs. ITO: [2012] 357 ITR 170 (Del) 14. Further in order to validly reopen and already concluded assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to make specific assertion the reasons recorded to the effect that escapement of income have any…

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

…liance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs CIT [2009] 308 ITR 38 (Del); State Bank of Patiala Vs. CIT reported in [(2015) 375 ITR 109 (P & H)]; JSRS Udyog Ltd. Vs. ITO [313 ITR 321 (Del.)]; CIT Vs. Viniyas Finance & Investment (P) Ltd. [357 ITR 646 (Del)]. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted, in the instant case also, the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequent assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act deserve to be quashed. 10. The ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. The ld. DR ref…

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

…in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 991 & 992/2011 for the AYs 1998-99 and 1997-98 vide order dated 01.09.2011. Further, he pointed out that the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for AYs 1994-95 75 | P a g e to 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140, holds the grounds as the Department has not filed any SLP against the order. 87. On the contrary, Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that basis adopted by the assessee is not scientific and without supported by relevant evidences. 88. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on r…

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

…in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos. 991 & 992/2011 for the AYs 1998-99 and 1997-98 vide order dated 01.09.2011. Further, he pointed out that the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for AYs 1994-95 75 | P a g e to 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140, holds the grounds as the Department has not filed any SLP against the order. 87. On the contrary, Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue submitted that basis adopted by the assessee is not scientific and without supported by relevant evidences. 88. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on r…

RANJANA AGGARWAL ,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 17/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12

…ely no allegation whatsoever by the AO of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of assessment. 8. I find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JSRS Udyog Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 313 ITR 321 and relied on by ld. Counsel while quashing the re-assessment proceedings has observed as under: “The Assessing Officer issued the notice under section 148 of the said Act on March 28, 2008, beyond the period of four years. As such, the proviso to section 147 would become applicable. Under the proviso itself, it is necessary that before any acti…

GM OVERSEAS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

…a Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and Anr., 308 ITR 38; (iv) Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. ITO, 308 ITR 22 (Del); (v) CIT vs. Purolator India Ltd., 343 ITR 0155 (Del); BLB Limited vs. ACIT, 343 ITR 0129 (Del); (vi) JSRS Udyog Limited & Another vs. ITO, 313 ITR 321 (Del); and (vii) Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 203 Taxman 408 (Del). 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NDTV vs. DCIT, reported in 424 ITR 607, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has quashed the reassessment proceedings for not mentioning the first proviso in the reaso…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

…lic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT and Anr 308 ITR 38 (Del.), iv. Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del), v. CIT vs. Purolator India Limited 343 ITR 0155 (Del), vi. BLB Limited vs. ACIT 343 ITR 0129 (Del), vii. JSRS Udyog Limited & Another vs. ITO 313 ITR 321(Del.) viii. Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 203 Taxman 0408 (Del). 27. In the end, he supported his contention by decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in NDTV Vs. DCIT dated 3.04.2020 wherein it has been held that the assessee has to disclose the primary facts as a duty and assessee is not required to disclose the secondary facts. He fur…