SAMSUNG DATA SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the impugned Final Assessment Order was barred by limitation as per Section 153 r.w. Section 144C of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Liberty was granted to the parties to revive the appeal if a Supreme Court decision necessitates modification.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal challenging the Final Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's primary contention was that the assessment order was time-barred, having been passed beyond the period prescribed under section 153(1) read with section 153(4) of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the Final Assessment Order is time-barred due to passing beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 153,Section 153(1),Section 153(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
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) r. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act in short) dated 28/06/2024 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee raised Additional Grounds of Appeal contending that the Final Assessment order dated 28/06/2024 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 und
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 144C(13)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 486/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Autoform Sales Gmbh, Hyderabad vs ADIT (International Taxation) - 1, HyderabadITA 498/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- 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
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