How many judgments cite ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd.?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. (95 Taxmann.com 101), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144C(1), Section 144C(13), Section 144C(15), Section 144C(3), Section 144C(5).

ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd.

95 Taxmann.com 101High Court2018#3974 most cited

What is ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A jurisdictional defect cannot be rectified by a corrigendum, and mistakes in assessment orders must be faced by the concerned party.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Vijay Television · Section 144C · jurisdictional defect · corrigendum · assessment order · consequences of mistake

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(15)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14A Section 153

Issues it is cited on

section 3a section 92ca(3a)section 144c(15)(b)section 92ca(4)section 144c(15)transfer pricing order section 92ca(1)section 153(4)eligible assessee section 153(1)section 92b section 144c(1)

Judgments citing ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd.

Advance Power Display System Ltd., Mumbai vs. Commissioner of (A)-55, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7360/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Advance Power Display Systems Commissioner Of Income Tax Ltd., (Appeals)-55, Unit No. 6, Multistoried Mumbai Building, Seepz-Sez, Vs. Andheri (East)- Mumbai -400096 Pan: Aaaca5970G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Y.P. Trivedi/Nishit Gandhi (Ars) Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande (Dr) Date Of Hearing :15/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2021

For Appellant: S/Shri Y.P. Trivedi/Nishit Gandhi (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Advance Power Display Systems Commissioner of Income Tax Ltd., (Appeals)-55, Unit No. 6, Multistoried Mumbai Building, SEEPZ-SEZ, Vs. Andheri (East)- Mumbai -400096 PAN: AAACA5970G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Y.P. Trivedi/Nishit Gandhi (ARs) Revenue by : Shri Sunil Deshpande (DR) Date of Hearing :15/07/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2021 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM Captioned appeal arises out of order dat…

M/S Inteva Products India Automotive Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2723/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri M.P.Lohia C A and Shri Chavalli Narayanan CAFor Respondent: Smt R.Premi JCIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2722 & 2723/Bang/2018 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s. Inteva Products India Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Manyata Embassy Business Park, N1 Block, 4th Floor, ORR, KR Puram Hobli, Nagawara, Rachenahalli Vill., Bangalore-560 045 ….Appellant PAN AABCM 9623K Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Room No.227, BMTC Building, Koramangala, Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri M.P.Lohia C A and Shri Chavalli Narayanan CA Rev…

M/S Inteva Products India Automotive Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2722/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri M.P.Lohia C A and Shri Chavalli Narayanan CAFor Respondent: Smt R.Premi JCIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

M/S. the Himalaya Drug Company, Bangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2248/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 156

…IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/s. The Himalaya Drug Company Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru-562162 Vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(1) Bengaluru PAN NO : AADFT3025B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2020 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT M…

Nikon India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed

ITA 8753/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiita No. 8753/Del/2019 ( A.Y 2015-16)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 156Section 253(1)Section 271Section 274Section 92BSection 92C

…PCIT vs Andrew Telecommunications (P.) Ltd: ITA No. 144 of 2017 (Bombay)  Turner International India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 398 ITR 177 (Delhi)  CIT v. C-Sam (India) (P.) Ltd: [2017] 398 ITR 182 (Gujarat)  ACIT vs Vijay Television (P) Ltd.: [2018] 407 ITR 642 (Madras) In view of the above, the Ld. AR submits that the order dated 18.12.2018, passed by the Assessing Officer ignoring the statutory provisions of section 144C of the Act, deserves to be quashed. 8. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is just and valid as per Section 144C…

Nikon India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed

ITA 8752/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiita No. 8753/Del/2019 ( A.Y 2015-16)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 156Section 253(1)Section 271Section 274Section 92BSection 92C

The ACIT, Circle-1, Kollam vs. M/S.Olam Agro India P. Ltd, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 560/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Olam Agro India Pvt. Ltd., Income-tax, Circle-1, Kollam. Bishop Jerome Nagar, Kollam-691 001. [PAN:AABCH 6830P] (Revenue -Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) Revenue by Shri Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Uday Agarwal and Ms. Nisha Bhutani, CAs Date of hearing 02/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 02/03/2020 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Kollam vs. M/S.Olam Agro India P. Ltd, Kollam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt.Surabhi Agarwal &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.518/Coch/2019 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 The Asst.Commissioner of M/s.Olam Agro India Income-tax, Circle-1 Vs. Private Limited Kollam. Bishop Jerome Nagar Kollam – 691 001. PAN : AABCH6830P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR Respondent by : Smt.Surabhi Agarwal & Sri.Uday Agarwal, CAs Date of Pronouncement : 14.01.2020 Date of Hearing : 13.01.2020 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against CIT(A)’s o…

Skoda Auto [ I ] P.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2344/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…iance upon the decision of a single judge of the Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd., (supra). This, decision has now been upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Vijay Television (P) Ltd., 407 ITR 642. In the above case, non issue of Draft Assessment Order could not be corrected by issuing a corrigendum to a final Assessment Order. Just as in the facts before the Madras High Court, here also the demand notice and institution of pending proceedings were not withdrawn by the corrigendum. Besides, in International Air Transport Association v/s. D…

The ACIT, Corp Circle-1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam vs. Appolo Tyres Ltd, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 247/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…et aside and, in such a case, even corrigendum issued by Assessing Officer modifying final order of assessment to be read as a draft assessment order, could not cure defect existing in original order. (e) In the case of ACIT vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd. (407 ITR 642) (Mad.), the Madras High Court held that where without first passing draft assessment order, final assessment order was passed u/s. 144C and demand was raised and penalty imposed, final assessment, demand and penalty would be invalid. 22 I.T.A. Nos. 247,302, 339, 268&336/Coch/2018& C.O. Nos. 56&57/Coch/2018 (f) In the case of Pr.CIT vs. Andrew…