COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HLS INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Coming To These Legal Issues It Would Be Pertinent, In The Light Of Facts & Circumstances Of These Cases, First Of All To Succinctly Narrate The Genesis Of Instant Prolonged Tax Dispute Between The Revenue & The Assessee.

Section 32A of the Act. The assessee is also entitled for investment allowance on stabilizer, electric fans, scanner and air- conditioner used to keep the analytical systems, as they are necessary for purposes of production of an article or a thing.‖ 34. Similar view has been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Down Town Hospital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HLS ASIA LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 32A of the Act. The assessee is also entitled for investment allowance on stabilizer, electric fans, scanner and air- conditioner used to keep the analytical systems, as they are necessary for purposes of production of an article or a thing." 34. Similar view has been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Down' Town Hospital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HLS INDIA LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Coming To These Legal Issues It Would Be Pertinent, In The Light Of Facts & Circumstances Of These Cases, First Of All To Succinctly Narrate The Genesis Of Instant Prolonged Tax Dispute Between The Revenue & The Assessee.

Section 32A of the Act. The assessee is also entitled for investment allowance on stabilizer, electric fans, scanner and air- conditioner used to keep the analytical systems, as they are necessary for purposes of production of an article or a thing.‖ 34. Similar view has been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Down Town Hospital

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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 made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

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 made by the assessee u/s 43B of the Act was denied by the AO. The AO computed the disallowance out of R&D cess amounting to Rs.33.89 crores. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that at the outset, it may be noted that as per the provision of Land Research and Development, cess is imposed on import of technology

ARVIND KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-18(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

32A, clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or subsection

M/S. HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HLS ASIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT- IV, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

HLS ASIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

32A and section 80IB of the Act. So, AO as well as CIT (A) have erred in AYs 2004-05, 2007-08 & 2008-09 in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IB of the Act on the ground that the assessee company is not a manufacturing concern

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

32A, clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduc-tion; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

32A, clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduc-tion; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

32A, clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduc-tion; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section

THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

32A, clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduc-tion; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section

M/S THOMSON PRESS (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- II

32A, clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduc-tion; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section