How many judgments cite Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India?

41 judgments on BharatTax cite Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India (397 ITR 728), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 35(2AB), Section 115O, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 234C.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India

397 ITR 728High Court2017#2947 most cited

What is Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India authority for?

For claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), the existence of recognition for a Research and Development (R&D) Centre is relevant, not necessarily the date of approval or recognition.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Union of India · section 35(2AB) · weighted deduction · R&D expenditure · recognition of R&D centre · DSIR approval · eligibility for deduction

Also reported as

84 Taxmann.com 45

Sections most often in play

Section 35(2AB)Section 115O Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C Section 250 Section 35(1)(iv)

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expenditure section 35(1)(iv)section 35(2ab)weighted deduction r&d expenditure section 35(1)section 35 csr expenditure business expediency section 36(1)(iii)revenue expenditure capital expenditure

Judgments citing Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India

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

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.901/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Maruti Suzuki India Limited, vs, DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) DCIT, Circle 16 (1), vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070. (PAN : AAACM0829Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate…

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

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ANAND NVH PRODUCTS PVT LTD, DELHI

ITA 3612/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 35

…ued by the Ministry of Service & Technology, Govt. of India w.e.f. 29/06/2015. On the other hand, the appellant submitted that while finalizing the assessment, the AO has ignored the decision of jurisdiction High Court in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd., (2017) 397 ITR 728 (Delhi) and decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd., (2010) 326 ITR 251 without assigning any reason despite of the fact that on identical issue the Hon'ble Courts have decided the issue in favour of assessee by saying that if the approval is granted by DSIR during the previous year relevant to the a…

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

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/323/2025HC Delhi21 Aug 2025

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 260A

…duction claimed on account of expenditure on scientific research under section 35(2AB) 246,65,38,1 22 − Covered by order dated 04.08.2017 passed by this Court in Respondent’s own case reported in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs. Union of India: 397 ITR 728 (Del.) − Covered in favour by following orders: • CIT vs. Sandan Vikas (India) Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del.) • CIT vs. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) Not raised in appeal 12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. ITA 323/2025 13. We find that identical proposed questions of law have been framed in th…

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

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/321/2025HC Delhi21 Aug 2025

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 154Section 260A

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

…Ld. AR submits that this amendment had taken place w.e.f. 01.07.2016 and was effective from AY 2017-18 and AO has wrongly applied the same in the year under appeal. He placed reliance on the following judgements:-  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India: 397 ITR 728 (Del)  CIT v. Sandan Vikas India Ltd: 335 ITR 117 (Del.)  CIT v. Claris Life sciences Ltd.: 326 ITR 251 (Guj.)  CIT v. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Mad.)  Texmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. v. PCIT: 167 ITD 118 (Kol. Trib.)  ACIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.: [2017] 86 taxmann.com 162 (Mum. Trib.)  ACIT v. Meco Instruments (P.) Ltd. [2010] 7…

KAISHA LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4311/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 35Section 68

…the year in which the application is made in Form 3CK. In the present case, as noted above the said application in Form 3CK was made by the assessee to the DSIR on 26/12/2019. 13. We find that in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v/s Union of India, reported in (2017) 397 ITR 728 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that for availing the benefit under section 35(2AB) of the Act what is relevant is not the date of recognition or the cut-off date mentioned in the certificate or the DSIR or even the date of approval but the existence of the recognition. It was further held that if a R&D Centre is not recognised it is no…

IND SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated

ITA 350/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N.Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 350/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd., The DCIT, बनाम 850, NAC, Mani Majra, Circle 1(1), VS Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAACI6306G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri T.N.Singla, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"…

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6252/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Srf Limited, Vs Acit, The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Unit No.236 & 237, Second Floor, New Delhi. Mayur Place, Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extn., Delhi-110091. Pan-Aaacs0206P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca, Shri R.K.Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Harish Dhamija, Adv. Respondent By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2015-16] SRF Limited, vs ACIT, The Galleria, DLF Mayur Vihar, Circle-1, LTU, Unit No.236 & 237, Second Floor, New Delhi. Mayur Place, Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extn., Delhi-110091. PAN-AAACS0206P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA, Shri R.K.Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Harish Dhamija, Adv. Respondent by Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR Date of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.11.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM :…

SANDHAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE LTU-1, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8160/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 35

…substantial question of law, therefore, arises. The appeal is dismissed. 5 8. Further we find that similar views were taken in the following decisions:- a) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Union of India reported in 397 ITR 728 (Del) b) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Banco Products (India) Ltd vs DCIT reported in 405 ITR 318 (Guj) 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act for the expenditure incurred from…

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HANON CLIMATE SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VISTEON CLIMATE SYSTEMS LIMITED INDIA LTD), NEW DELHI

Accordingly decided against the Revenue while ground no. 2 is decided in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of revenue is allowed partly

ITA 5813/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5813/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5813/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. M/s. Hanon Climate Tax, Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(1), (Formerly known as M/s. New Delhi Visteon Climate Systems India Ltd.) Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070 Assessee by Sh. K.M.Gupta, Adv. Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Ms. Tanya, Adv. Revenue by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 28.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 06.04.2023 ORDER Per Anubhav Sharma, JM :…

ANAND NVH PRODUCTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-01, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 8999/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.8999/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Anand Nvh Production Pvt. Jcit Vs. Ltd., Special Range-01, F-3/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaeca0297J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35

…ounsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251) and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maruti Udyog India Ltd. I.T.A.No.8999/Del/Del/2019 (397 ITR 728) submits that the assessee is entitled for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act for the AY 2015-16 though the approval was granted on 12.02.2016 by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 4. The Ld. DR referring to page 117 of the PB which is the letter dated 09.09.2015 of the assessee requesting Department of Scientific and I…

EICHER MOTORS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8739/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

…ct, whether incurred prior to or post the date of such approval by DSIR mentioned in Form 3CM i. CIT vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd. 326 ITR 251 (Guj.) ii. CIT vs Sandan Vikas India Ltd. 335 ITR 117 (Del.) iii. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs Union of India & Anr. 397 ITR 728 (Del.) b) Deduction under section 35(2AB) cannot be denied in respect of recognized in-house R & D centre even though approval in Form 3CM for the relevant years was under consideration or awaited. iv. CIT vs TVS Electronics Ltd. 419 ITR 187 (Madras) v. Minilec India (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT 171 ITD 124 (Pune Trib.) c) Expenditure eligible for deduc…

EICHER MOTORS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 3Section 35Section 35I

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3650/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Kuldip Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3650/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vs. National Bank for Agriculture DCIT 3(2)(2) Room No. 674 & Rural Development 6th Floor C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Aayakar Bhavan Complex, Bandra M.K. Road Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 3344/Mum/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vs. Addl.CIT 3(2) National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development Room No. 674 C-24, G-Block, Bandra Kurla 6th Floor Complex, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 051. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) P…

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

…T vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd (2010) 326 ITR 251 (Gujrat) (Copy is enclosed at page 319 to 321 of the paperbook) CIT vs TVS Electronics Ltd (2019) 419 ITR 187 (Madras) (Copy is enclosed at page 322 to 325 of the paperbook) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs CIT (2017) 397 ITR 728 (Delhi) (Copy is enclosed at page 326 to 336 of the paperbook) 23 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., Judicial precedents in the context of approvals under section 40A(7) of the Act 43 The Appellant places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT vs Shalimar Wire and Industries Ltd (199…

SALVI CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 300/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Salvi Chemicals बिधम/ Acit-13(2)(1) Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. C/O. H.N. Motiwalla & Co. 400020. 508 Sharda Chambers 33 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs0142E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Harish Motiwalla (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.09.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Under Section A.Y. 2014-15 36(1)(Iv) R.W.S 36 (2Ab) Of The Act, Amounting To Rs, 1,88,97,692/-, Particularly When, The Order Under Section 35(2Ab) Of The Act (In Form No. 3Cm) Had Been Granted Registration Upto March 31,2012 & Renewed Upto March 31, 2015. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai, Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Disallowance Of Research & Development Expenses Amounting To Rs. 1,88,97,692/ Under Section 35(1)(Iv) R.W.S. 35 (2Ab) Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Decisions Submitted At The Time Of Hearing Or Without Distinguishing The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Motiwalla (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Salvi Chemicals बिधम/ ACIT-13(2)(1) Industries Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. C/o. H.N. Motiwalla & Co. 400020. 508 Sharda Chambers 33 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAKCS0142E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Harish Motiwalla (AR) Revenue by: Shri T. S. Khalsa (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of…

DCIT-14(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S TITAN LABORATORIES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 3762/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 133ASection 35

…hallenged this decision of the Tribunal on the basis of two judgments. One of this Court in case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd.(supra) already referred earlier and other of Delhi High Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (2017) 397 ITR 728. Revenue however contends that both these judgments are distinguishable on facts. It was canvassed that in case of Claris Lifesciences Ltd.(supra), the expenditure, application and approval, all three occurred in the same year which is not the case in the present appeal. With respect to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(supra), it was canvassed that point…

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3345/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 133ASection 35

TITIAN LABORATORIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3344/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 133ASection 35

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3