CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.

336 ITR 434High Court2011#1244 most cited

What is CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd. authority for?

A reduction in the cost of purchases from foreign suppliers and rental income from essential ATM facilities within an industrial unit are eligible for deduction under Section 80IB as they arise from the industrial undertaking.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd. · Metalman Auto P. Ltd. · Section 80IB deduction · industrial undertaking · eligible profits · reduction in cost of purchases · foreign suppliers · ATM facilities · ancillary income · industrial profits

Also reported as

11 Taxmann.com 5119 Taxmann 149

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Metalman Auto P. Ltd.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 961/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…pronouncements:- [i] CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1 (SC); [ii] Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. vs DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); [iii] Maxopp Investment Ltd. 203 Taxman 364 (Del.); [iv] CIT vs Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H); [v] CIT vs Metalman Auto P.Ltd. 336 ITR 434 (P&H); [vi] CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.); [vii] CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom.); [ix] CIT vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor 319 ITR 299 (Del). 43. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that looking to the facts of the present case, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act would be warranted. Firstly, the AO has no…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1507/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…pronouncements:- [i] CIT vs Walfort Share & Stock Brokers 326 ITR 1 (SC); [ii] Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. vs DCIT 328 ITR 81 (Bom.); [iii] Maxopp Investment Ltd. 203 Taxman 364 (Del.); [iv] CIT vs Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H); [v] CIT vs Metalman Auto P.Ltd. 336 ITR 434 (P&H); [vi] CIT vs Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.); [vii] CIT vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 339 ITR 632 (Bom.); [ix] CIT vs Ms. Sushma Kapoor 319 ITR 299 (Del). 43. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that looking to the facts of the present case, no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act would be warranted. Firstly, the AO has no…