The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
High Court
22 Aug 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
Date of order
22 Aug 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Decision: Consequently, and following the reasons assigned by us in ITA 196/2017, these appeals shall stand dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~61 & 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ ITA 229/2019
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Choudhary, Adv.
versus
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni & Mr. Udit Naresh, Advs. Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni & Mr. Udit Naresh, Advs.
63
+ ITA 141/2023
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6
.....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with
Mr. Anant Mann and Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, Advs. Pratyaksh Gupta, Advs.
Versus
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni & Mr. Udit Naresh, Advs. Udit Naresh, Advs.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJAO R D E R22.08.2024
%
We take note of the question which is pressed before us in these appeals, and which is identical to proposed question no. 12 which we had examined inter partes in our order dated 28 March 2024 passed in
ITA 196/2017 and which pertained to the disallowance on account of FPI-OE components made by the Assessing Officer as the said claim was a provisional liability.
In ITA 196/2017, learned counsel for the assessee had contended that that the assessee had regularly and consistently followed the same scientific method of quantifying the aforesaid liability and which had also been accepted by the Department up to Assessment Year[1] 2002-03 and then in AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07.
Additionally, since question no. 12 was observed to have been settled in light of the decisions rendered in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax[2], Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Excel Industries[3] and Bharat Earth Movers vs. Commissioner of Income-tax[4],we had after hearing learned counsels for parties in ITA 196/2017 ultimately found that the question did not merit consideration.
Consequently, and following the reasons assigned by us in ITA 196/2017, these appeals shall stand dismissed.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
AUGUST 22, 2024/neha
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1 AY
2 (2009) 13 SCC 283
3 (2014) 13 SCC 459
4 (2000) 6 SCC 645
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.