Case Law Details
CIT Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue in the case concerning Assessment Year 2004-05 and declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court judgment in favour of the assessee on multiple income tax issues.
Before the Delhi High Court, the Revenue had challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 30 June 2008 raising four substantial questions of law. The first issue concerned whether duty drawback accrued in the year of export or only upon passing of the order by the competent authority. The High Court answered this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding that the Tribunal had not erred.
Read Delhi High Court Judgment in this case: Duty Drawback Taxable on Approval, MODVAT Credit Allowed u/s 43B, but 80IB Must Be Reduced for 80HHC: Delhi HC
The second issue related to whether unutilized MODVAT credit adjusted in the relevant assessment year constituted actual payment of excise duty under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court answered this question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
The third issue involved deletion of an addition of Rs. 6,17,26,038 made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged excess consumption of raw materials and components. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision deleting the addition and answered the issue in favour of the assessee.
The fourth issue related to computation of deduction under Sections 80-IB and 80HHC. Referring to the decisions in Great Eastern Exports v. CIT and Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, the High Court answered this question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, holding that the deduction allowable under Section 80-IB was required to be reduced while computing deduction under Section 80HHC.
The Revenue subsequently approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, held that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.
2. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
3. The Special Leave Petition is hence dismissed
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Author Bio
