QUALCOMM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were indeed barred by limitation. Following the precedent set by the Madras High Court in Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment orders.
What were the facts?
The assessee contended that the final assessment orders were time-barred as they were passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue sought deferral, citing a pending Supreme Court case on a similar issue.
What were the issues?
Whether the final assessment orders were passed within the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessees challenging the respective Final Assessment Orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13)
r.w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short) dated
31/01/2022 pertaining to A.Y 2017-18, dated 30/07
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 →- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026