Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
High Court
07 Dec 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
Date of order
07 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
1994-95
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA No. 906/2011
Reserved on: 11[th] November 2017
Decided on: 7th December, 2017
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ....Appellant Through: Mr. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates.
versus
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.
..... Respondent Through : Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. S. Sukumaran, Mr. Anand Sukumar, Mr. Bhuwan Dhoopar, Ms. Roopali Gupta and Mr.Bhupesh Pathak, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGMENT
% 07.12.2017
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 29[th] October 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No.4443/Del/2007 for the AY 1994-95.
2. While admitting this appeal on 10[th] August 2011, the following questions of law were framed for consideration:
ITA No. 906/2011
Page 1 of 2
“Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that on account of duty drawback had not accrued and become payable to the assessee and cannot be included in the taxable income of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95,1997-98, 1998-99?”
3. In view of the decision of this Court today in ITA No. 905 of 2011, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
4. ITA No. 906 of 2011 is accordingly dismissed.
DECEMBER 07, 2017 Rm
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
ITA No. 906/2011
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.