Disposed

Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Union of India

Delhi HC14 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/4913/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This jurisdiction disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought directions for deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. The court observed that the Assessing Officer had already granted the deduction for relevant assessment years, leading the petitioner to withdraw the petition without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn.

Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs Union of India — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4913/2018 & CM Appl. 18956/2018

¶4

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.Ganesh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.Sukumaran, Mr.Anand Sukumar & Mr.Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms.Eshita Baruah, Advocate for Mr.Gaurang Kanth, CGSC with Ms.Kamini Mishra & Mr.Suman Mazumdar, DSIR

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 14.01.2019

¶9

The petitioner had claimed directions for grant of benefit of Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the light of the previous judgment of this Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. [W.P.(C) 9306/2015], delivered on 4^th August, 2017 for three Assessment Years. On the first date of hearing, i.e. 5^th July, 2018, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court had observed as follows:

¶10

“Mr.Gaurang Kanth, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government accepts notice for the Union of India.

¶11

The Court has considered the submissions.

¶12

Prime facie, it appears that despite the petitioner having succeeded in the previous writ proceedings for the grant of benefit under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – as is evident from the decision of the Court dated 04.08.2017 in W.P.(C) 9306/2015 (for the A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-

¶13

page 1 of 2

¶14

W.P.(C) 4913/2018

¶15

14), the concerned official in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, is not processing the application. The Court also notices that the respondent‟s Special Leave Petition was rejected by the Supreme Court on 11.05.2018.

¶16

In the light of these facts, the letter written by Dr.Suman Mazumdar (Scientist „C‟) prima facie appears to be obstructionist and contumacious. In the event the certificate is not issued before the next date of hearing, the Court would initiate proceedings against the Secretary In-charge of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

¶17

List on 28.08.2018”

¶18

Subsequently, adjournments were granted to the parties. In the meanwhile, the petitioner appears to have filed an affidavit in response to the Revenue’s letter dated 23^rd August, 2018.

¶19

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that on 11^th January, 2019, the Assessing Officer passed an order granting the petitioner deduction under Section 35(2AB) of Assessment Year 2011-2012. The Assessing Officer is also in the process of granting the said deduction for Assessment Year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Accordingly, the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition against the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, without prejudice to the contents of the petitioner’s affidavit dated 22^nd November, 2018 and seeks leave to withdraw the same.

¶20

In the light of the above developments, the petition is disposed of, as withdrawn, granting the liberty sought in the above terms.

¶21

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶22

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶23

JANUARY 14, 2019 „hkaur‟

¶24

page 2 of 2

¶25

W.P.(C) 4913/2018

Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Suzuki India Limited v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankush Ravindra Karwa Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amit Arora Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahender Pratap Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Cambridge School Vs the Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Abdul Wahid Vs Delhi Jal Board and Anr.

Rajkumari Gupta Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs Sunita Kumari and Anr.

M/S Sriyash Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

B.B.M Impex Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (GROUP-7),ICD, Tughalakabad

Narender Yadav Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs (Exports)

M/S. Oriental Trimex Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Recovery) & Anr.

Bindra Tours N Travel Vs Prasar Bharati & Ors.

Rockwell Industries Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, & Anr.

Parampreet Singh Kochar Vs Union of India & Ors.