MIH INTERNET SEA PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. The impugned final assessment order was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenged the final assessment order, contending it was time-barred. The assessment order was passed beyond the time frame prescribed under Section 153 read with Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
Whether the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was time-barred, considering the interplay between Section 144C and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 153,Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 153(1),Section 153(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(10)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.
- 21. In SB Gurbaksh Singh v. Union of India318 citing37 STC 425 · 2007
- (i) Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain187 citing1 SCC 373 · 1997
- State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd.140 citing11 SCC 363 · 2007
- (ii) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers131 citing2002 SCC OnLine SC 1226 · 2003
- CIT v. S. Teja Singh129 citing35 ITR 408 · 1959 · SC · Read judgment
- R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka128 citing1 SCC 335 · 1992
- (ii) Govt. of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals116 citing3 SCC 483 · 1989
- 99 citing
- Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Haryana98 citing3 SCC 478 · 1988
- 2021 SCC OnLine SC 8896 citing2021 SCC OnLine SC 88 · 2021
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeal is filed by the Assessee challenging the Final Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short) dated 27/04/2023 pertaining
to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee raised Ground No. 1.5 contending that the Final
Assessment order dated 27/04/2023 passed by the A.O. is time
barred by limitation and is bad in law, as it has been passed beyond
the time frame prescribed under section 153(1) read with section 1
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 153
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Zabuben Mepabhai Bharvad, Ahmedabad vs The PCIT - 1, AhmedabadITA 1233/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment… vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 3453/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026