DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

disallowance under section 43B of the Act following the assessment Orders for the 2 | P a g e earlier assessment years despite admitting that in the earlier year(s) most of the issues have been decided in favour of the appellant. 3.2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in holding that the deduction of liability

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(‘the Act’). According to the Assessment order, the following are such statutory duties claimed by the assessee for deduction, but disallowed by the Assessing Officer: Item Item Particulars Amount (Rs.) No. 1(a) PLA Balance of Excise Duty on Vehicles 28,21,616 1(b) PLA Balance R&D Cess on Vehicles

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)

disallowance under section 43B of the Act following the assessment orders for the earlier assessment years despite admitting that in the earlier year(s) most of the issues have been decided in favour of the appellant. 3.2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in holding that the deduction of liability to pay taxes/duties under section

LORDS FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 15(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

disallowed the commission of Rs.4,50,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The submissions of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) are as under: “a) The assessee has sold a plot no. 9 situated in interior in sector 21-B, Faridabad measuring 1011.11 square yards. This plot was also having temporary construction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INTERARCH BUILDING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci0106J Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. [Explanation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S INTERARCH BUILDING PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3259/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4986/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs M/S Interarch Building Products (P) Circle-11(1), Ltd., Farm No. 8, Khasra No. 56/2, New Delhi Dera Mandi Road, Mandi Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110047 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci0106J Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. [Explanation

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance under section 43B of the Act following the assessment Orders for the earlier assessment years despite admitting that in the earlier year(s) most of the issues have been decided in favour of the appellant. 3.2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in holding that the deduction of liability to pay taxes/duties under section

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

The appeal is dismissed

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

disallowance under section 43B of the Act following the assessment Orders for the earlier assessment years despite admitting that in the earlier year(s) most of the issues have been decided in favour of the appellant. 3.2. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in holding that the deduction of liability to pay taxes/duties under section

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)

disallowance under section 43B of the Act following the assessment orders for the earlier assessment years despite admitting that in the earlier year(s) most of the issues have been decided in favour of the appellant. 3.0.2 That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in holding that the deduction of liability to pay taxes/duties

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

disallowances. On 07 April and 28 July 2021, the petitioner was served with notices under Section 92CA intimating it of a reference having been made to the TPO. The TPO issued a show cause notice on 03 September 2021 apprising the writ petitioner of various adjustments which were proposed to be made. Since the additions proposed would have been binding

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act of Rs. 4,97,18,139/-. We find that assessee has claimed the above deduction with respect to its software unit at Goa. Though the total deduction available during the year 2001-02 was Rs. 8,89,258/-, but it was restricted it to the gross total income. The fact shows

HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act of Rs. 4,97,18,139/-. We find that assessee has claimed the above deduction with respect to its software unit at Goa. Though the total deduction available during the year 2001-02 was Rs. 8,89,258/-, but it was restricted it to the gross total income. The fact shows

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act of Rs. 4,97,18,139/-. We find that assessee has claimed the above deduction with respect to its software unit at Goa. Though the total deduction available during the year 2001-02 was Rs. 8,89,258/-, but it was restricted it to the gross total income. The fact shows

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act of Rs. 4,97,18,139/-. We find that assessee has claimed the above deduction with respect to its software unit at Goa. Though the total deduction available during the year 2001-02 was Rs. 8,89,258/-, but it was restricted it to the gross total income. The fact shows

HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

disallowance of deduction under Section 80IB of the Act of Rs. 4,97,18,139/-. We find that assessee has claimed the above deduction with respect to its software unit at Goa. Though the total deduction available during the year 2001-02 was Rs. 8,89,258/-, but it was restricted it to the gross total income. The fact shows