CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the ld AO on the limited issue that order passed by the ld AO is barred by limitation. Ground No. 1 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(Ltu), Vs. M/S. Gail (India) Ltd, Circle-1, 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, Nbcc Plaza Pusp Vihar, Rk Puram, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

…a (HUF). 306 ITR 173(Del) 76. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, 308 ITR 38 (Del) 77. India Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd, 171 Taxman 379 (Del) 78. Wei Intertrade (P) Ltd, 308 ITR 22 (Del) 79. J P Bajpai HUF, 269 ITR 40 document1 80. JSRS Udyog Ltd, 313 ITR 321 (Del) 81. DT&TDS, 232 CTR 260 (Del) 82. Jashan Textile Mills (P) Limited. 284 ITR 542 (Bom) 83. Durga Prashad Goyal. 98 ITD 227 (Asr.) (SB)- 4.8 In view of the Plethora of case laws relied upon by the appellant and the findings of the undersigned that there was no non-disclosure of any material facts by the appellant, Ground no. 1 of the appeal i…

Haryana Distillery Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Haryana Distillery Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 16, Community Centre, Circle-11(1), New Friends Colony, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabch0933K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th December, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-35, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31St March, 2010 Declaring Income At Rs.1,73,82,410/-. The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 30Th December, 2010 At An Income Of Rs.1,73,93,322/-. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act By Recording The Following Reasons:-

…; vi) BLB Limited vs. ACIT (2012) 343 ITR 129 (Del); vii) CIT vs. Noble Resources (2011) 202 Taxman 223 (Del); viii) CIT vs. Sil Investments Ltd. (2011) 339 ITR 166 (Del); ix) D.T. & T.D.C. Ltd. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 234 (Del); x) JSRS Udyog Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 313 ITR 321 (Del); xi) Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. vs. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 (Del); xii) CIT vs. Indian Farmers Fert. (2008) 171 Taxman 379 (Del); xiii) CIT vs. Foramer France (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC); xiv) ITO vs. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC). 8. So far as the allegation of the Revenue that the assessee has not fully and truly disclosed a…

M/S. Dsc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07 M/S Dsc Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle -15, E-9, 3Rd Floor, Ndse Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacd0003D ( Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 .10.2018 O R D E R Per Narasimha K. Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10Th November 2014 In Appeal No.97/2014-15 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, New Delhi For Asstt. Year 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Execution Of Contractual Works Including The Extension Of Widening Of Highways, Construction Of Flyovers, Culverts

…ITA No. 468/2014 dt 19.08.2014 CIT vs. Star Finvest Pvt. Ltd. b) c) [2014] 226 Taxman 162 (Del) M/s Swarovski India Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 356 (Del) Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. d) WPC 284/2013 dated 23.05.2013 Microsoft Corporation e) India Pvt. Ltd. 313 ITR 321 JSRS Udyog Ltd. vs. ITO f) 177 Taxman 300 CIT vs. DCM Ltd. g) 165 Taxman 84 CIT vs. Intercontinental Trading & Investment h) Co. Ltd. 171 Taxman 379 Indian Fertilizer Co-op Ltd. i) j) 303 ITR 155 CIT V Indian Sugar and Gen. Inds Exim Corpn k) 324 ITR 234 DT and TDC Ltd. vs. ACIT 1) 308 ITR 22 Wei Inter-trade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO m) 308 ITR 38 Haryan…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

…deduction to the assessee under section 43B of the Act. Ld. AR further submitted that this 24 issue is, in principle, also covered by the order of the Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996- 97, reported in 255 CTR 140. In the light of these submissions and detailed explanation offered 3.4. by both the parties now we shall proceed to deal with the item wise submissions under Ground No.3.” 10. As can be seen from the factual aspect for A.Y. 1994-95, the said issue is dealt hereinafter as the assessee has taken separately each item of the disallowance. Hence, Gr…

M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Del

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

…r before 19th May 1999. The Assessee’s own case for AYs 1995-96 & 1996-97 16. The question framed also arose in the Assessee‟s own case for the AYs 1995-96 and 1996-97 before this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2013) 255 CTR 140 (Del). One of the questions addressed by this Court in the said appeal was: “Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the amounts deposited by the Assessee/Respondent in the Excise Personal Ledger Account (PLA) could not be disallowed under Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act?” 17. After referring to the decisions in CIT v. C.L. G…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

…e as deduction to the assessee under section 43B of the Act. Ld. AR further submitted that this issue is, in principle, also covered by the order of the Delhi High Court in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97, reported in 255 CTR 140. 3.4. In the light of these submissions and detailed explanation offered by both the parties now we shall proceed to deal with the item wise submissions under Ground No.3. 3.5. Adverting to Grounds No 3.1 and 3.1.1, we find in the return of income, the assessee claimed deduction of duty paid amounting to Rs. 1,41,29,183 being closing balance in t…

M/S. Standard Watch Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

…tement of some Shri Mahesh Garg which were never recorded nor Shri Mahesh Garg was ever produced for cross examination by the assessee hence such statement cannot be relied upon. In support, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) JSRS Udyog Ltd. – 313 ITR 321 (Del.); ii) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. DCIT – 356 ITR 209 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. – 348 ITR 485 (Del.) FB; iv) BLV Ltd. vs. ACIT – 343 ITR 129 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Suren International (P) Ltd. – 357 ITR 24 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.- 320 ITR 561 (SC); 9. In ground No.3, the assessee has again question…

M/S. J.B. Trading Company, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2005-06

…ion of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Harvana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. CIT & Anr. 308 ITR 38 (Del). Other decisions that support this view are Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del) and JSRS Udyog Limited and Another vs. ITO, 313 ITR 321 (Del). Respectfully following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, we have to hold that the reopening is bad in law as the AO has not alleged that the assessee has failed to disclose truly and fully facts required for the assessment as per the first proviso to Section 147. Even otherwise also notice u/s 148 for 3 reopening has not bee…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

…nds have been explained by the Learned AR hereunder: 8.1 Regarding excise duty paid i.e. balance in PLA, he submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the following decisions: 32 (i) Delhi HC for AY 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 reported in 255 CTR 140 (Para 15-16). (ii) ITAT for AY 1999-00 (Para 28) (iii) ITAT for AY 2000-01 (Para 4-5) (iv) ITAT for AY 2001-02 (Para 4.3) (v) ITAT for AY 2002-03 (Para 13, Page 15-17 of order) (vi) ITAT for AY 2004-05 (Para 3-5, Page 3-7 of order) (vii) ITAT for AY 2005-06 (Para 14-16, Page 7-8 of order) (viii) ITAT for AY 2006-07 (Para 4.4-4.13, Page 5-21 of or…

M/S. K.C. Fibres Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2003-04 M/S Kc Fibres Ltd, Acit, Circle 5(1), Bm-2A, Dilkush Industrial Vs. New Delhi Estate, Gtk Road, Azadpur, Delhi – 110 033 (Pan:Aaack3050H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…y filing the copies thereof with the Paper Book and requested to quash the reassessment. - CIT v. Suren International P. Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 24 (Del) - Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company v. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 38 (Del) - JSRS Udyog Limited v. ITO (2009) 313 ITR 321 (Del) - Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 (Del) 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the documentary evidence filed by the 7 A.Y. 2003-04 assessee as well as prevailing law. He further stated that Notice u/s. 148 has be…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

…rial facts necessary for the purpose of assessment, as contemplated in proviso to section 147 of the IT Act. Therefore, in view of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. vs. ITO 308 ITR 22 (Del) and M/s. JSRS Udyog vs. CIT, 313 ITR 321 (Del.) relied upon by the assessee, action under section 147 could not be taken against the assessee in the present situation. The assessee also objected to initiate the proceedings without approval of higher authorities u/s. 151, on which no material is available from the side of revenue to rebut the objection of the assessee. The submissions of…

CIT vs. Praveen Industries Pvt Ltd

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 13.12.2010 . Present: Ms.Sonia Mathur, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Prakash Kr., Advocate for the Respondent. . + ITA No.1956/2010. . . . The return for the relevant accounting year was filed at an income of Rs.1,70,42,783/- on 31.10.2001. The same was processed and assessment was framed under Section 142(3) on 24.03.2003 at an income of Rs.1,80,80,973/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act on 27.03.2008. Recording revealed that the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80HHC on the amoun…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Xerox Modicorp Limited

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

…he Tribunal rightly held that even as per CIT (A), it was not a case made out that there was failure on the part of the assessee to give complete particulars. He referred to the following judgments in his support this plea: (i) JSRS Udyog Ltd. vs. ITO [313 ITR 321 (Del.)] (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] ITA No. 1274 of 2007 & Others Page 17 of 22 21. On the aspect of change of opinion, Mr. Vohra‟s forceful submission was that complete details of the items manufactured by the assessee were given. Whether they fall in Schedule XI or not was hotly…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Xerox Modicorp Limited

Appeals are dismissed

…ibunal rightly held that even as per CIT (A), it was not a case made out that there was failure on the part of the assessee to give complete particulars. He referred to the following judgments in his support this plea: - (i) **JSRS Udyog Ltd.** vs. **ITO** [313 ITR 321 (Del.)] - (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] - 21. On the aspect of change of opinion, Mr. Vohra's forceful submission was that complete details of the items manufactured by the  assessee were given. Whether they fall in Schedule XI or not was had debated and discussed. Even certificate…

Commissioner of Income Tax Central I vs. Xerox Modicorp Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

…ibunal rightly held that even as per CIT (A), it was not a case made out that there was failure on the part of the assessee to give complete particulars. He referred to the following judgments in his support this plea: - (i) **JSRS Udyog Ltd.** vs. **ITO** [313 ITR 321 (Del.)] - (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] - 21. On the aspect of change of opinion, Mr. Vohra's forceful submission was that complete details of the items manufactured by the assessee were given. Whether they fall in Schedule XI or not was hot debated and discussed. Even certificate under Section 80CC (3) was giv…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Xerox Modicorp Limited

Appeals are dismissed

…he Tribunal rightly held that even as per CIT (A), it was not a case made out that there was failure on the part of the assessee to give complete particulars. He referred to the following judgments in his support this plea: (i) JSRS Udyog Ltd. vs. ITO [313 ITR 321 (Del.)] (ii) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar [268 ITR 332 (Bom.)] 2010:DHC:4533-DB 21. On the aspect of change of opinion, Mr. Vohra‟s forceful submission was that complete details of the items manufactured by the assessee were given. Whether they fall in Schedule XI or not was hotly debated and discussed. Even certificate…