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.

M/S. Matrix Comsec Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Range-4, Baroda

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

ITA 2907/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

Section 143(3)Section 35

…ITA No.2446 & 2907/Ahd/2013 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘B’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Mahavir Prasad JM] ITA Nos.2446 & 2907/Ahd/2013 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Matrix Comsec Pvt. Ltd. .......…………...........Appellant C-1/394, G.I.D.C., Makarpura, Baroda. [PAN : AABCM 5892 Q] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Baroda. ............................Respondent Appearances by S.N. Soparkar and Parin shah for the applicant Mudit Nagpal for the respondent Hearing concluded on: 14.02.2018 Order pronounced on : 24.04.2018 O R…

M/S. Matrix Comsec Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Range-4, Baroda

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

ITA 2446/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

Section 143(3)Section 35

…ITA No.2446 & 2907/Ahd/2013 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘B’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Mahavir Prasad JM] ITA Nos.2446 & 2907/Ahd/2013 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Matrix Comsec Pvt. Ltd. .......…………...........Appellant C-1/394, G.I.D.C., Makarpura, Baroda. [PAN : AABCM 5892 Q] Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Baroda. ............................Respondent Appearances by S.N. Soparkar and Parin shah for the applicant Mudit Nagpal for the respondent Hearing concluded on: 14.02.2018 Order pronounced on : 24.04.2018 O R…

Minilec India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 690/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.690/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, At & Post Pirangut, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 412111 …. Pan:Aabcm2682E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11(2), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 43BSection 69C

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.690/PUN/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, At & Post Pirangut, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 412111 …. PAN:AABCM2682E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11(2), Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Kishore Phadke प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Jha, JC…

Diebold Systems P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 12(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 1060/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Mrs. Malathi Sridharan/
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

…o state the name of assessee correctly is a procedural error rectifiable u/s 292B of the Act. The aforesaid objection of the ld. DR is quite untenable and the same has been directly dealt with by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd., 397 ITR 681 (Delhi). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court by relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. (supra) held that once it is found that the assessment is framed in the name of a non-existent entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which is curable by invoking Sec. 292B of the Act. Thus, the aforesaid ob…