DCIT, CC-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P LTD., AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF M/S. MAUSMI VENTURES LTD., MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that an order under Section 163 is mandatory before treating a person as a representative assessee. The assessment order passed without such an order is void ab initio and lacks jurisdiction.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer treated Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (KRPL) as a representative assessee of M/s. Mausmi Ventures Ltd. (MVL) without passing a specific order under Section 163 of the Income Tax Act. This was done despite MVL being dissolved and KRPL having responded to show-cause notices.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order passed treating an assessee as a representative assessee without a separate order under Section 163 is valid. Whether the opportunity of being heard under Section 163(2) was adequately provided.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 163,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144C,Section 246(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Belapur Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd.19 citing141 ITR 404 · 1983 · HC
- CIT v. Kanhaiyalal Gurmukh Singh6 citing87 ITR 476 · 1973 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H ”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These three appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-12 and 2013-14 respectively. All the t
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 163
- Sai Pragathi Estates & Constructions Pvt… vs Income Tax Officer (Int. Taxn)-1, HyderabadITA 1627/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Kalpataru Projects International Limited…ITA 6159/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Kalpataru Projects Inernational Limited…ITA 6114/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Kalpataru Projects International Limited…ITA 6113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
- Kalpataru Projects International Ltd… vs DCIT, CC-3(3), MumbaiITA 5961/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026