IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.287/DEL/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

ITA No.901/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

ITA No.6949/DEL/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Maruti Suzuki India Limited, vs, DCIT, Circle 16 (1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi.

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.

(PAN : AAACM0829Q) ITA No.1024/DEL/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

DCIT, Circle 16 (1), vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi. Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110 070.

(PAN : AAACM0829Q)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Ms. Somya Jain, CA REVENUE BY : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department Shri Kalrav Melhotra, Advocate Ms. Kannu Priya, Advocate Date of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of Order : 08.10.2025

ORDER

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1. The assessee and Revenue have filed cross appeals against assessment order dated

31.12.2015 passed by the DCIT, Circle 16(1), New Delhi under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”) for Assessment Year 2011-12 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act. The assessee has also filed appeals against assessment order passed by the DCIT, Circle 16(1), New Delhi under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act.

2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. We take up the assessee’s appeal being ITA No.287/Del/2016 for AY 2011-12 as lead case to adjudicate the issues under consideration wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned assessment completed vide order dated 31.12.2015 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act'), is illegal and bad in law.1

1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment having been completed on the basis of directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law.

1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders for the earlier years.

2. That the assessing officer erred on facts of the case and in law in completing the impugned assessment at an income of Rs.37,01,18,87,075/- as against income of Rs.2294,80,71,262/- declared by the appellant.

3. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not reducing Rs.117,11,24,049/-, being amount offered to tax by the appellant in the return of income under section 43B of the Act consistent with the said amount being claimed as deduction on payment basis in the preceding assessment years.

3.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not reducing the aforesaid amount, even though the assessing officer, as per the directions given by the DRP, had verified that the said amount had not been allowed as deduction on payment basis in the preceding assessment years.

4. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making further disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.19,20,34,841/- under section 14A of the Act, over and above suo-motu disallowance of Rs.2,09,65,159/- by the appellant.

4.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in proceeding to make disallowance under section 14A simply on the basis of method/ formula prescribed in Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, without ap