$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                          ITA No. 397/2009
                                      Reserved on: 11th November 2017
                                       Decided on: 7th December, 2017


       COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI            ....Appellant
                   Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing
                            Counsel, Mr. Puneet Rai, Junior
                            Standing Counsel and Mr. Gaurav
                            Kheterpal, Advocate.

                                  versus

       MARUTI UDYOG 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 30th
June 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (`ITAT') in ITA
No.2696/Del/2007 for the AY 2004-05.

2. While admitting this appeal on 28th January 2010, the following questions






ITA No.397/2009                                                  Page 1 of 3
of law were framed for consideration:


        1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in
        holding that duty drawn back accrues to the assessee only on passing
        of the order by appropriate authority and not in the year of export?

        2. Whether the ITAT is right in law in holding that unutilized
        MODVAT credit for earlier years adjusted in assessment years in
        question should be treated as actual payment of the excise duty under
        Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

         3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT erred
        in deleting the addition of Rs 6,17,26,038/- made by the Assessing
        Officer on account of alleged excess consumption of raw materials
        and components shown by the Assessee?

        4. Whether the ITAT erred in setting aside the order of CIT (A) and
        direct the Assessing Officer not to reduce the amount of deduction
        allowable under Section 80-IB from the profits of business for the
        purpose of computing deduction under Section 80HHC?

3. In view of the decision of this Court rendered today in ITA No. 250 of
2005:
   (a) Question 1 is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee
        and against the Revenue.
   (b) Question 2 is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue
        and against the Assessee.
   (c) Question 3 is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee
        and against the Revenue.






4. As far as Question 4 is concerned, in view of the decisions in Great
Eastern Exports v. CIT [2011] 332 ITR 14 (Del) and Associated Capsules


ITA No.397/2009                                                   Page 2 of 3
(P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2011] 332 ITR 42 (Bom), it is answered in the
affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.

5. ITA No. 397 of 2009 is disposed of accordingly.




                                                      S. MURALIDHAR, J.



                                                 PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2017
Rm




ITA No.397/2009                                                    Page 3 of 3