$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ITA No. 442/2005
Reserved on: 11th November 2017
Decided on: 7th December, 2017
MARUTI UDYOG LTD. ..... Petitioner
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.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing
Counsel, Mr. Puneet Rai, Junior
Standing Counsel and Mr. Gaurav
Kheterpal, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGMENT
% 07.12.2017
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. This is an appeal by the Assessee against the impugned order dated
28th March 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (,,ITAT) in
ITA No.678/Del/2004 for the AY 2000-01.
2. While admitting this appeal on 24th April 2006, the following questions of
law were framed for consideration:
ITA No.442/2005 Page 1 of 3
"i. Whether the ITAT erred in law in confirming the disallowance of
the amount of Rs.2,93,59,644/- deposited by the Appellant in its
Central Excise Personal Ledger Account (PLA) before 31.3.2000 i.e.
the end of the relevant accounting year even though the assessee has
already incurred liability of excise duty of a much higher value?
ii. Whether the ITAT had committed an error of law in upholding the
disallowance of the amount of Rs.65,43,26,890/- which represented
MODVAT credit of excise duty that remained unutilized by
31.3.2000 i.e. the end of the relevant accounting year?
iii. Whether the ITAT has committed an error of law in upholding the
disallowance of Rs.3,57,51,194/- in respect of Sales Tax Recoverable
account, under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act?
iv. Has not the ITAT erred in law in failing to allow the software
expenditure of Rs.1,82,71,588/- incurred by the Appellant as revenue
expenditure?"
3. In view of the decision of this Court today in ITA No. 31 of 2005,
Question (i) is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee and
against the Revenue.
4. Question (ii) is answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue and
against the Assessee in view of the decision of this Court in ITA No. 31 of
2005.
5. Question (iii) is again answered in the negative, i.e. in favour of the
Revenue and against the Assessee.
6. Question (iv) is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the Assessee
and against the Revenue.
ITA No.442/2005 Page 2 of 3
7. ITA No.442 of 2005 is disposed of accordingly.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 07, 2017
Rm
ITA No.442/2005 Page 3 of 3
|