ITAT Chennai Judgments — December 2023

M/S BASF CATALYSTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 1/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

M/S SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,CHENNAI vs DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 14/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY LANKA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 17/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY SL,CHENNAI vs DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 18/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

M/S SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,CHENNAI vs DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 19/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

M/S SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,CHENNAI vs DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 20/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

M/S SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,CHENNAI vs DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 23/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

GU OCEAN PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs ITO, CORPORATE WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 24/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES INC,NEW YORK vs ACIT, INTNL. TAXATION-2)2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 27/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES INC,NEW YORK vs DCIT, INTNL TAXCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 28/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES INC,NEW YORK vs DCIT, INTNL TAXCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 29/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES INC,NEW YORK vs DCIT, INTNL TAXCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 30/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES INC,NEW YORK vs DCIT, INTNL TAXCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 31/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

LASERWORDS US INC,US vs DCIT, INTNL. TAXN CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 34/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

LASERWORDS US INC,US vs DCIT, INTNL. TAXN CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 40/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

POLARIS CONSULTING & SERVICES PTE, LTD,SINGAPORE vs DCIT, INTNL TAXN-2(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 5/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

KOSTAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,VELLORE vs DCIT,CIRCLE-1, VELLORE

ITTPA 9/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

SANMAR ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs PCIT CHENNAI-3, CHENNAI

ITA 568/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the interest expenditure was disallowed under Section 37 and not Section 14A, and the income from the debentures was taxable, not exempt, Section 115JB(f) was not applicable. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.

M.MAHAVEER CHAND,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (4), CHENNAI

ITA 803/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the ITSC had considered the gold jewellery found at the assessee's residence and accepted the Gross Profit ratio offered by the company for taxation, it could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee, reversing the CIT(A)'s order. For silver articles, the CIT(A)'s partial relief was upheld.

SPI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUDUCHERRY vs ITO , NFAC, DELHI

ITTPA 63/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

LASERWORDS US INC,PUDUCHERRY vs DEPUTY COMMISIIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 44/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

SMRC AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS NETHERLANDS B.V,KANCHEEPURAM vs DCIT, IT 2(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 53/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

M/S SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,CHENNAI vs DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 18/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

BGR BOILES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 22/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

WATANMAL BOOLCHAND & COMPANY LTD.,HONGKONG vs DCIT, INTNL TAXN-2(2)(I/C), CHENNAI

ITTPA 31/CHNY/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

WATANMAL BOOLCHAND & COMPANY LTD.,HONGKONG vs DCIT, INTNL TAXN-2(2)(I/C), CHENNAI

ITTPA 32/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

SPI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUDUCHERRY vs ITO , NFAC, DELHI

ITTPA 61/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

BGR BOILES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 68/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

DURR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CHENNAI

ITTPA 69/CHNY/2022[2009-2010]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2009-2010Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

AMEC FOSTER WHEELER (HOLDINGS) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 15/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and the Assessing Officer (AO) without a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) being allotted and duly quoted in the body of such order are invalid, non-est, and shall be deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that there was no integration between the ITBA portal and the DRP module, stating that field officers were equipped to allot and quote DINs. The Tribunal also clarified that while a DRP order itself cannot be directly challenged before the ITAT, the final assessment order passed pursuant to such directions can be challenged. If the DRP directions are invalid, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under section 144C(13) based on non-est directions, and the extended time limit under section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment order barred by limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and assessees, allowing the additional ground of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic.

M/S SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY SOCIEDAD ANONIMA,CHENNAI vs DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 22/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

KASI VISWANATHAN SRIDHARAN,CHENNAI vs ITO, INTNL TAXN WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 32/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the transaction should be treated as long-term capital gains. The reasoning was that the assessee acquired rights in the property through a Will dated 01.06.1987, with the condition of the mother having a lifetime interest. Considering the entire facts, including the Will's execution date and the mother's demise, the Tribunal opined that the transaction should indeed be treated as long-term capital gains. The ratio decidendi is that a Will creating a life interest for one beneficiary and absolute rights for others upon the life beneficiary's demise, where the property is sold after the demise, can establish long-term capital gain status from the Will's execution date or the life interest termination date. Regarding the claim for exemption under Section 54 of the Act, since the assessee's counsel requested another opportunity to furnish complete details, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to submit all necessary documents to substantiate the claim and then decide the issue in accordance with the law. The Tribunal also directed the AO to reconsider the issue of TDS credit, which was not clearly emanating from the assessment order or DRP directions, and pass a speaking order after affording a sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs ITO , NFAC , DELHI

ITTPA 38/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the absence of a valid computer-generated DIN in the DRP orders, as required by Circular No. 19/2019, renders such orders invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the ITBA portal and DRP module are not integrated, citing sample orders with DINs. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable, the final assessment orders passed in pursuance of invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if DRP directions are deemed non-existent, the AO cannot pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) based on them. Consequently, the extended time limit under Section 144C(13) read with the first proviso to Section 153(2) would not be applicable, making the final assessment orders passed by the AO barred by limitation. The Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated. The stay petitions filed by M/s Mobis India Limited were dismissed as infructuous.

M/S. MEGASOFT LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CHENNAI

ITTPA 72/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee's international transactions for Assessment Year 2013-14. The Tribunal noted that the TPO had accepted the CUP method for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12. For AY 2012-13, the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal resulted in a decision dated 21.09.2022 (ITA No. 733/Chny/2017) where the Tribunal reversed the TPO's and DRP's rejection of the CUP method. The Tribunal in that prior decision observed that the TPO had not provided credible reasons to reject the CUP method, especially since the assessee consistently followed it and there was no change in facts and circumstances compared to preceding years. The Tribunal also noted that the margin from third-party non-AE sales was lower than from AE sales, supporting the CUP method. Following this coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the authorities below for AY 2013-14. The AO was directed to consider the CUP method as the most appropriate method and delete the addition made towards Transfer Pricing adjustment. The issue of TNMM being the most appropriate method was implicitly rejected by allowing CUP.

MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED,MADURAI vs DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, MADURAI

ITTPA 20/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

SMRC AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS NETHERLANDS B.V,KANCHEEPURAM vs DCIT, IT 2(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 54/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

MOBIS INDIA LIMITED ,KANCHIPURAM vs DCIT,NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 10/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

M/S.SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE ENERGY EOLICA SL,CHENNAI vs DCIT,INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 11/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

SPI TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUDUCHERRY vs NFAC, DELHI

ITTPA 14/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

SIEMENS GAMESA RENEWABLE POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

ITTPA 17/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

BNY MELLON TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs ACIT,NFAC, DELHI

ITTPA 24/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

MOBIS INDIA LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs DCIT, NON CORPORATECIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 25/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

MOBIS INDIA LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs DCIT, NON CORPORATECIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

ITTPA 26/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the DRP orders, which failed to quote a valid computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, are invalid, non-est, and deemed to have never been issued. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the lack of integration between ITBA and DRP modules, noting that sample orders with DINs were produced. It also clarified that while DRP orders themselves are not directly appealable to the ITAT, the final assessment orders passed pursuant to invalid DRP directions are appealable. The Tribunal reasoned that if the DRP directions are non-est, the AO cannot pass a valid assessment order under Section 144C(13), and the extended time limit for passing such orders would not apply, making the final assessment orders barred by limitation. Following established legal principles, an illegal order remains in force until set aside, but its consequences can be corrected in appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders passed by the AO for all assessment years and in all assessee's cases, allowing the additional grounds of appeal. Other grounds raised on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

ITO WARD 2, KARUR vs RAM BLUE METALS, KARUR

ITA 2787/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Dec 2023AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the assessee provided sufficient evidence that no single payment exceeded the threshold limit and the supplier confirmed this. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deemed incorrect.

M/S. ANNAMALAI INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CC - 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 3419/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

A.V.MADHAVA RAO,CHENNAI vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 3430/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

UMA SHANKAR GUPTA TALLAM,GUNTUR vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 718/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

M/S. GAYATHRI REALTORS,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 61/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

M/S. ANNAMALAI INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CC - 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 3420/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

M/S. ANNAMALAI INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CC - 1 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 3421/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, remitting the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.