PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

397 ITR 681High Court2017#1367 most cited

What is PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 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.

84

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

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

129 Taxmann.com 163

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 68Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 292BSection 142(1)Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(7)section 133(a)section 80ia(4)(iii)section 161section 159section 167section 2(31)warrant of authorisationsection 39section 292blegal representativetransferor company

Judgments citing PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

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…

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Pride Residency (P) Ltd. (in the Case of Spn Milk Products Inds. P.Ltd.), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4182/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Dhingra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T Kipgen, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 264

…f the Revenue regarding the aforesaid defect being curable u/s. 292B, when we look at the case law on this aspect, we find that in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6 New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Successor of Suzuki Powertrain India Limited) (2017) 397 ITR 681 (Delhi), Spice Entertainment Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(2012) 247 CTR (Delhi) 500 (Civil Appeal 285/2014,Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd.(2015) 370 ITR 288 (Civil Appeal 43 17/2014 where against SLP was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Punjab &…

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

…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 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

…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…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 213/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…essee has challenged 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 [2017] 397 ITR 728/250 Taxman 113/84 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi). 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 Indi…

Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 is also partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 954/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/17 and 213/Ahd/18 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Page 1 of 85 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President, and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] ITA Nos. 954/Ahd/2017 and 213/Ahd/2018 Assessment years: 2012-13 and 2013-14 Cadila Healthcare Limited …………….………Appellant Zydus Tower, Satellite Cross Road, Ahmedabad 380 015 [PAN: AAACC6253G] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad ……………………Respondent Appearances by Mukesh Patel along with Prashant Maheshwari for the appellant Mohd Usman for the respondent Date…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Elofic Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4291/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 35

…lso mentioned in submissions filed before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others [2017] 397 ITR 728 (Delhi) which has held that in order to avail of the benefit u/s 35(2AB) what is relevant is not the date of recognition or the cutoff date mentioned in this certificate of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DISR) or even the date of approval but the existence of the recognition. Once approval is granted by DISR, the same would…

Minilec India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11(2), Pune

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

ITA 3100/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 35

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3100/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, Mulshi Pirangut, Mutha Road, Mulshi, Pune-412111. PAN: AABCM2682E ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. ACIT, Circle-11(2), Pune. ..……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27.04.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronounceme…

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

…d. vs. ACIT Supreme Court vide order 4.8.2009, bearing CC No.10181/2009 • CIT vs Sandan Vikas India Ltd.: 335 ITR 117 (Del) – SLP dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order 09.01.2012, bearing CC No.21706/2011 • Maruti Suzuki India Ltd v. Union of India & Anr (397 ITR 728) - The Special Leave Petition of the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.05.2018 in SLP No. 32458/2017. • CIT vs. Wheels India Ltd.: 336 ITR 513 (Mad) • Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 1057/2017)(Guj.) • DCIT vs. International Tractors Ltd.: ITA No. 5817/ 6071 of 2010 (Del); • ACIT vs Meco Instrume…

M/S Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Raichur vs. Addl.C.I.T., Raichur

In the result, the appeal on Gr

ITA 1352/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Shilpa Medicare Ltd., Vs. The Additional Commissioner 10/80, 1St Floor, Rajendra Gung, Of Income Tax, Raichur – 584 102 Raichur. Pan: Aadcs 8788 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. S. Annamalai, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 9.9.2015 Of Cit(A) Kalaburagi, Relating To Ay 2011-12. 2. One Of The Issues That Arose For Consideration In The Appeal By The Assessee For Ay 2011-12 Was With Regard To The Allowability Of The Assessee For Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act). Similar Issue Arose For Consideration In The Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Also In Ita No.1351/Bang/2015. The Appeals For Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12 Were Heard Together & A Common Order Was Passed By The Tribunal. On The Issue Of Allowing Deduction U/S.35(2Ab) Of The Act, The Tribunal Came To The Following Conclusion In Its Order Dated 6.2.2020:-

For Appellant: Shri. S. Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 35

…court further held that once facility is approved, the entire expenditure so incurred on development of R&D facility has to be allowed for weighted denudation. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruthi Suzuki India Pvt Ldt., Vs Union of India (2017) 397 ITR 728 (Delhi), had considered an identical issue and held that for availing the benefit u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, what is relevant is not the date of recognition or the cut off date mentioned in the certificate of the DSIR or even the date of approval, but the existence of recognition. The Hon’bel Gujarat High Court in the case of Banco Product India Ltd…

Genpact Infrastructure (Hyderabad) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6587/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 144CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

…ice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT 280 ELT 43 (Del) xi) CIT vs. Spice Infotainment Ltd. Civil Appeal 285 of 2014, Judgment dated November 2, 2017 (SC) xii) CIT vs. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd. (2014) 370 ITR 288 8 xiii) PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2017) 397 ITR 681 (Del) xiv) PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (SLP(C) Diary No. 14106 of 2018) xv) CIT vs. Micra India (P.) Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 809 xvi) PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. 402 ITR 21 (Del. HC) xvii) CIT vs. Micron Steel (P.) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 386 xix) BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 397 ITR 529 (Del…

ACIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Glint Infraporjects P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3594/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 9(3)(2), M/S. Glint Infraprojects 418, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, (Keystone Stockfin Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd. Merged In Glint Vs. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aadcg 5620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.277/M/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3594/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Glint Infraprojects Dcit 9(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, (Keystone Stockfin Pvt Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Merged In Glint Mumbai - 400020 Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aadcg 5620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 03.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of 2 M/S. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2007-08. Besides The Assessee Has Challenged The Jurisdiction Of The Ao To Re-Open & Frame Assessment On Legal Grounds By Way Of Cross Objections.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT 9(3)(2), M/s. Glint Infraprojects 418, 4th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, (Keystone Stockfin Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd. Merged in Glint Vs. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.), 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 PAN: AADCG 5620L (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.277/M/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.3594/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Glint Infraprojects DCIT 9(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 418, 4th Floor, (Keysto…

Basf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 1791/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Doshi a/w, Ms. DipanjaliFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…that once a company merges with another company by virtue of a scheme of amalgamation, it will lose its existence after such merger. The aforesaid view expressed by the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court was again reiterated in PCIT v/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2017] 397 ITR 681 (Del.). While affirming the view expressed by the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order passed in respect of a non–existing entity is invalid. While doing so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also upheld the view expressed by the Hon‘ble Bombay Hig…

Genpact India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri B. R. R. Kumargenpact India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 12A, Ground Floor, Prakash Deep Circle-10(1) Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, C. R. Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi New Delhi Aabce4461B Pin: 110002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 115QSection 124Section 130(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 292BSection 391Section 77A

…ice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT 280 ELT 43 (Del) xi) CIT vs. Spice Infotainment Ltd. Civil Appeal 285 of 2014, Judgment dated November 2, 2017 (SC) xii) CIT vs. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd. (2014) 370 ITR 288 xiii) PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2017) 397 ITR 681 (Del) xiv) PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (SLP(C) Diary No. 14106 of 2018) xv) CIT vs. Micra India (P.) Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 809 xvi) PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions and Networks India Pvt. Ltd. 402 ITR 21 (Del. HC) xvii) CIT vs. Micron Steel (P.) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 386 xix) BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 397 ITR 529…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 581/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Vs M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCE9378F ITA No. 5734/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. CIT, Vs M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Special Range-9 New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESP…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 580/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Vs M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCE9378F ITA No. 5734/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. CIT, Vs M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Special Range-9 New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESP…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S V E Commercial Vehicles Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5734/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce9378F

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Choudhary, CIT DR &
Section 14ASection 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vice President Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 580/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ITA No. 581/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Vs M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Circle-26(1), New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCE9378F ITA No. 5734/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Addl. CIT, Vs M/s VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd., 3rd Floor, Select City Walk, A-3, Special Range-9 New Delhi District Centre, New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESP…