1. Kuber Tobacco Products v. DCIT

117 ITD 273Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#4607 most cited

What is 1. Kuber Tobacco Products v. DCIT authority for?

Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2008, has prospective effect and does not apply retrospectively.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kuber Tobacco Products v. DCIT · 117 ITD 273 · section 292BB · Finance Act 2008 · retrospective effect · prospective application · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Judgments citing 1. Kuber Tobacco Products v. DCIT

SURENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CIR-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/ALLD/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad10 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2002-03 Surendra Kumar Mishra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 794A/1, Sohabatiyabagh, Income Tax, Circle-2, Allahabad Allahabad-211006, U.P. Pan:Aibpm4858R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.10.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The 'Additional Ground' Relating To Non-Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act, Raised Before The Appellate Authority During The Course Of First Round Of Litigation, Which Has Been Remanded Back By The Hon'Ble Itat In Terms Of Order Dated 09.11.2012, By Observing That The Return Filed By The Appellant In Terms Of Letter Dated 10.11.2008 As Not A Valid Return In Compliance To Notice Dated 11.02.2008 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act, As The Said Letter Was Filed By The Appellant After The Time Limit Of 30 Days Provided To Do So In Terms Of Notice Dated 11.02.208 Issued Under Section 148 Of The Act. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Observing That The Appellant Could Not Have Demand For Issuance Of Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The 1 Surendra Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…t the ld. CIT(A) had failed to note that the provisions of 292BB has been inserted in 7 Surendra Kumar Mishra the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1.04.2008. The ITAT Delhi Special Bench, in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 117 ITD 273 had held that section 292BB inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 had no retrospective effect and was to be construed prospectively. Therefore, the above provisions would not be applicable to the assessment year under appeal i.e. AY 2002-03. They noted that the ld. CIT(A) had not disputed the orders of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of…

INDO OFFICE SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3176/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 132Section 133Section 147Section 148

…lied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362. The Ld. AR further relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del.) ii) Kuber Tobacco Products vs. DCIT 117 ITD 273 (SB) iii) CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders 383 ITR 448 (Del) iv) Alpine Electronics vs. DGIT 341 ITR 247 v) ITO vs. Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 5626/Del/2012) order dated 16.03.2017 Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order framed is bad in law. 6. As regards to Ground No. 3 relating to enhancement of income by the CIT(A)…

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act makes the assessment invalid and void ab-initio and in this regard he has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Kuber Tobacco Products vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (SB) 2. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders, 383 ITR 448 (Del) 3. Alpine Electronics vs. Director General Income Tax, 341 ITR 247. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended before us that non- issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act will not make the assessment…

NITIN P. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act makes the assessment invalid and void ab-initio and in this regard he has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Kuber Tobacco Products vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (SB) 2. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders, 383 ITR 448 (Del) 3. Alpine Electronics vs. Director General Income Tax, 341 ITR 247. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended before us that non- issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act will not make the assessment…

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3943/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act makes the assessment invalid and void ab-initio and in this regard he has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Kuber Tobacco Products vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (SB) 2. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders, 383 ITR 448 (Del) 3. Alpine Electronics vs. Director General Income Tax, 341 ITR 247. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended before us that non- issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act will not make the assessment…

MRS.PRABHABEN K. GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3942/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act makes the assessment invalid and void ab-initio and in this regard he has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Kuber Tobacco Products vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (SB) 2. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders, 383 ITR 448 (Del) 3. Alpine Electronics vs. Director General Income Tax, 341 ITR 247. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended before us that non- issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act will not make the assessment…

ASGAR MOHAMMED HUSSAIN GHADIALI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…ice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act makes the assessment invalid and void ab-initio and in this regard he has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Kuber Tobacco Products vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (SB) 2. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders, 383 ITR 448 (Del) 3. Alpine Electronics vs. Director General Income Tax, 341 ITR 247. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended before us that non- issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act will not make the assessment…

SHRI SACHIN JAIN,RISHIKESH vs. ITO, RISHIKESH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4840/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2005-06 Sachin Jain, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Chaman Lal Jain, Ward-1(4)(2), Near Jain Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Rishikesh. Rishikesh. Pan: Adhpj2085N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Shobhit Tiwari,, Advocates Revenue By : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St January, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal. This Appeal Was Earlier Dismissed By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 For Non- Prosecution. Subsequently, The Tribunal, Vide Order Dated 9Th March, 2018, Recalled Its Earlier Order. Hence, This Is A Recalled Matter. 3. There Is A Delay Of 152 Days In Filing Of This Appeal Before The Tribunal By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Along With An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. After Considering The Submissions Made Therein & On A Perusal Of The Record, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Sachin Jain, Vs. ITO, S/o Shri Chaman Lal Jain, Ward-1(4)(2), Near Jain Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Rishikesh. Rishikesh. PAN: ADHPJ2085N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Shobhit Tiwari,, Advocates Revenue by : Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 11.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 1st January, 2016 of the CIT(A), Dehradun, relating to Assessment Year…

M/S. HALCROW GROUP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5554/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani &For Respondent: Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 154Section 234ASection 44DSection 9

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM ITA No. 5163/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 ITA No. 5164/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 ITA No. 5554/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Halcrow Group Ltd., Vs ADIT, R-27, 2nd Floor, Pratap Market, International Taxation, Jangpura-B, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH7866E Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lal Chandani & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. Revenue by : Sh. G. K. Dhall, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 02.0 7.2018 ORDER Per…

DCIT 10(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MANZ RETAIL P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5766/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5766/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) बिधम/ Dcit-10(2)(2) M/S. Manz Retail Private Room No. 216-A, Aayakar Limited, Knowledge House, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Off. Jogeshwari Vikhroli Mumbai-400020. Link Road, Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm1978J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (Ar) Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.09.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2004-05 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271USection 271U(1)(c)

…be valid was inserted by Finance At, 2008 with effect from 01.04.2008 prospectively and, hence, could not be invoked for earlier period. We also find that similar view has been taken by Special Bench in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT – 117 ITD 273 (Del) (SB) wherein it has been held as under: “Section 292BB, inserted by Finance Act, 2008, has no retrospective effect and is to be construed prospectively. Therefore, up to 31-3-2008 as per section 2921313, assessee is not precluded from taking any objection regarding invalidity of an assessment/reassessment on ground of improper/invalid issu…

SHRI ISHWARBHAI MAGANBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,, PATAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 90/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasson Kabra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 158BSection 292BSection 68

…ion before us, whether this inherent defect in the notice can be legalized with the help of section 292BB. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that section 292BB was considered by the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Kuber Tobacco Vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 wherein it has been observed that this provision is prospective in nature. It was brought in statute w.e.f. 1.4.2008 and hence, it was not effective when the notice under section 158BD was issued. Therefore, the department cannot get any benefit from this section. Apart from this, we find that Third Member of the ITAT in the case of Sikandar Lal…

TML DRIVELINES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5256/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…diction to make an assessment. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Hotel Blue Moon v/s ACIT, 321 ITR 362 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Mohammad Khaleeq Commercial Taxes, 86 CCH 362 (All.); iii) Kuber Tobacco Products Ltd. v/s DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (Del.); iv) PCIT v/s Silver Line, 383 ITR 455 (Del.); v) Salman Khan, ITA no.2362 of 2009, dated 01.12.2009 (Bom.); vi) CIT v/s Salman Khan, ITA no.2362 of 2009, dated 01.12.2009; vii) Kanchanjunga Impex Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, 45 CCH 81 (Mum.); viii) PCIT v/s Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Ltd., 383 ITR 448 (Del.). 6. Further, the learned Authorised…

DR. SB KALIDHAR,PUNJAB vs. ITO, HISAR

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2010-11 Dr. Sb Kalidhar Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Villa 709, Gillco Valley, Sector -14, Hisar Kharar, Sas Nagar, Punjab-140301 (Pan: Abspk1517Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. Sb Kalidhar, Assessee In Person. Respondent By : Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Dr. SB Kalidhar, Assessee in PersonFor Respondent: Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2010-11 DR. SB KALIDHAR vs. ITO, Ward-4, VILLA 709, GILLCO VALLEY, Sector -14, Hisar KHARAR, SAS NAGAR, PUNJAB-140301 (PAN: ABSPK1517Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Dr. SB Kalidhar, Assessee in Person. Respondent by : Ms. Ashna Paul, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee against the Order dated 12.1.2016 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-Hisar for the Assessment Year 2010-11. In this appeal the assessee has taken up the legal ground that no valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act was serv…

PANKAJ DUTTA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2206/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2206/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pankaj Dutta..........................................................................................Appellant Prop. Annapurna Construction, M-95A, Yuri Gagarin Path, Bidhannagore, Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Ahdpd1092P] Income Tax Officer...................…………………………………….........Respondent Ward 1(3), Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur - 713216 Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit (Appeals) Durgapur Dated 31.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Additional Ground Of Appeal Which Reads As Follows: “Because That The Ld. Income Tax Officer Was Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Passing Of The Order U/S 147/143(3) Dated 30Th March, 2015 Without Issue Of The Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The It Act, 1961 & As Such His Reassessment Order Is Not Good In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. As This Is A Legal Ground, Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer. As All The Facts Required To Adjudicate This Grounds

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…he assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment. The above provision has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2008. ITAT, Delhi Special Bench in the case of Kuber Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, 117 ITD 273 held that section 292BB has been inserted by Finance Act, 2008, has no retrospective effect and is to be construed prospectively. The assessment order under appeal is 2001-02. Therefore, the provision of section 292BB of the IT Act would not apply in the case of the assessee. Further, no nnotice u/s 143(2) has been issued or served upon the asses…

MENZ RETAIL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3889/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Menz Retail Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 8(2), Ground Floor, R.N.216-A, Knowledge House, Aayakar Bhavan, Off. Jogeshwari-Vikroli M.K. Road, Vs. Link Rd., Mumbai - 60 Shyam Nagar, Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai – 400 060 Pan: Aaacm1978J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Suman Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…be valid was inserted by Finance At, 2008 with effect from 01.04.2008 prospectively and, hence, could not be invoked for earlier period. We also find that similar view has been taken by Special Bench in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT – 117 ITD 273 (Del) (SB) wherein it has been held as under: “Section 292BB, inserted by Finance Act, 2008, has no retrospective effect and is to be construed prospectively. Therefore, up to 31-3-2008 as per section 2921313, assessee is not precluded from taking any objection regarding invalidity of an assessment/reassessment on ground of improper/invalid issua…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GRAVITY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ce under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act makes the assessment invalid and void ab-initio and in this regard he has placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Kuber Tobacco Products vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 (SB) 2. CIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders, 383 ITR 448 (Del) 3. Alpine Electronics vs. Director General Income Tax, 341 ITR 247. 10. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has contended before us that non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act before completion of the assessment under section 147/148 of the Act will not make the assessment…

VIDYAVIHAR CONTAINERS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…tion 143(2) of the Act dated 23.10.2006 through the normal mode. 4.3.7 In so far as the applicability or otherwise of section 292BB of the Act to the case on hand is concerned, the ITAT Special Bench Delhi in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products (I) Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 273 (Delhi) has held that section 292BB of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2008 is not retrospective and would apply prospectively for and from A.Y. 2008-09. Further, in the case on hand, this section would not apply in view of the proviso to section 292BB of the Act, since the assessee has raised its objection to the validity of n…

ITO,WARD-41(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SUBRATA SAHA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 226/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kr.Pande, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292Section 69

…of the Act has been held to be prospective and not retrospective i.e. applicable only with effect from 01.04.2008. For this proposition he relied on the decision of Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2009) 117 ITD 273 (Del.) (SB) , wherein the following propositions are laid down: "(1) S. 292BB, inserted by the F.A. 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2008, creates a legal fiction and takes away the right of an assessee to claim that in case of invalid notice the whole proceedings taken pursuant to that notice would be void ab initio and will have no legal consequences; ITA No…

M.G. CAPITAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 6342/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M & L.P. Sahu,Am Asstt. Year: 2000-01 M.G. Capital Services Ltd. Vs Dcit Raj Kumar & Associates, Ca Circle-6(1) 4435/7, Ansari Road, Darya New Delhi Gang New Delhi-110002 Appellant Respondent Pan No. Aaacm6670R

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CA, Sh. Sumit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…be quashed. The Ld AR also pointed out that this is a non-curable defect and thus provisions of section 292 BB of the Act are not applicable in the light of preposition laid down by special bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products reported as 117 ITD 273 (Delhi-Tribunal) (SB) which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated 06.10.2010 in WP No. 1159 & 1161/2010. 6 Placing reliance on the various decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi including decision in the case of CIT Vs Eshaan Holdings (P) Ltd. 344 ITR 541 (Delhi) the Ld AR strenuously contented that when the return has been…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…licability of section 292BB in the instant reassessment, the ld. AR pointed out that this issue is no longer res integra because the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (Delhi) has upheld the decision of Special Bench decision in Kuber Tobacco Product Pvt Ltd 117 ITD 273 wherein it was held that the said section 292BB is applicable only for the assessment year 2008- 09 onwards and since there is no dispute that the relevant assessment year before us is 2004-05, the revenue cannot take the aid of section 292BB to cover this defect which is incurable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue M…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

1. Kuber Tobacco Products v. DCIT (117 ITD 273) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax