MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, following the ratio of the Madras High Court in CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. and numerous orders of co-ordinate benches, held that the impugned Final Assessment Orders were barred by limitation as per Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.
What were the facts?
The Assessee filed appeals challenging the Final Assessment Orders, arguing they were time-barred due to the Assessing Officer passing them beyond the period prescribed under Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue sought deferral of adjudication, citing a pending Supreme Court case on a similar issue.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer were time-barred under Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 144B,Section 153(1),Section 153(4),Section 158AB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: YOGESH KUMAR U.S. & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the Assessee challenging the 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 28/01/2022 pertaining to A.Y 2017-18, dated 28/07/2022 for A.Y 2018-19 and dated 03/08/2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 respectively.
The Assessee raised Additional Grounds of Appeal No. 6, 10 and 34 for the Appeals filed for A.Y 2017-18 to 2020-21 res
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 →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026