NOVRTIS INIDA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6832/MUM/2010Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 March 2024AY 2002-03147 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in its consolidated order, addressed multiple grounds. Regarding the jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee (Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal), the Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed by the Addl. CIT. While the judgment excerpt provided does not explicitly detail the Tribunal's final decision on the jurisdictional challenge, it indicates that the Tribunal considered the arguments. However, the provided text focuses on other grounds. For Ground No. 3 of the revenue's appeal, concerning the deletion of disallowance of corporate entrance fees, the Tribunal held that identical issues for preceding assessment years were decided in favour of the assessee. Following the principle of consistency and the decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2001-02, where the Tribunal relied on the Apex Court's decision in CIT V/s United Glass Mfg. Co. Ltd. and the Bombay High Court's decision in Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. V/s CIT, the revenue's ground was dismissed. Consequently, Ground No. 2 of the assessee's cross-objection was allowed. For Ground No. 4 of the revenue's appeal, also concerning corporate entrance fees, the Tribunal again followed the principle of consistency and the decision in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years, dismissing the revenue's ground.

What were the facts?

The appeals by the assessee, M/s. Novartis India Limited, and the revenue, along with a cross-objection by the assessee, pertain to Assessment Year 2002-03. The assessee filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the assessment order dated March 22, 2005, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax (Addl. CIT) under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention is that the Addl. CIT lacked the necessary jurisdiction to pass the assessment order, arguing that he did not qualify as an Assessing Officer under section 2(7A) read with section 120(4)(b) of the Act, and that jurisdiction was not validly transferred under section 127. The assessment proceedings involved notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) issued by various income-tax authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner and the Addl. CIT. The Addl. CIT also passed an order under section 92CA(3) concerning transfer pricing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 22, 2005, passed by the Addl. CIT under section 143(3) is bad in law, illegal, and without jurisdiction, on the grounds that the Addl. CIT did not possess legal and valid jurisdiction under section 120(4)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, and that jurisdiction was not validly transferred under section 127 of the Act? Assessee's contentions: The Addl. CIT did not qualify to be the Assessing Officer (AO) as per section 2(7A) read with section 120(4)(b). Even if he qualified, without a transfer of jurisdiction in his favour as per section 127, he could not have passed the assessment order. The assessment proceedings and order are therefore without jurisdiction. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment regarding this specific issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 120(4)(b),Section 2(7A),Section 127,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 92CA(3),Section 92CA(1),Section 154,Section 143(1),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA NO.6832/MUM/2010
ITA NO.6772/MUM/ 2010
CO NO.190/MUM/2011

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Novartis India Limited 6%& 7 Floor

Inspire BKC

“G” Block, BKC Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai — 400051

PAN: AAACH2914F

V.

Asst. Commissioner of Income —Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner of Income —Tax — 7(1)} 1* Floor, Aayakar Bhavan

M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

(Appellant)

(Respondent)

ITA NO.6772/MUM/ 2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)

Addl. Commissioner of Income —-Tax — 7(1) Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

v. | M/s. Novartis India Limited

{Earlier Known as Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road Worli, Mumbai — 400018

PAN: AAACH2914F

(Appellant)

(Respondent)

CO NO.190/MUM/2011 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6772/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)]

M/s. Novartis India Limited {Earlier Known as Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,}

Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road Worli, Mumbai — 400018

PAN: AAACH2914F

Vv.

Addl. Commissioner of Income —Tax — 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

(Appellant)

(Respondent)

ITA NO.683

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 120(4)(b)

All 60 judgments and leading authorities on Section 120(4)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →