Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vijay Television (P) Ltd.

407 ITR 642High Court2018#8650 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 93faceless assessment schemesection 158bdsection 144barelated party transactioneligible assesseesection 92ca(1)section 158bbsection 158bcsection 292bsection 144c(1)section 156

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vijay Television (P) Ltd.

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…e Courts have on multiple occasions observed that corrigendum's cannot have the effect of rectifying a fundamental jurisdictional defect: Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP :225 Taxman 35/ 369 ITR 113 (Mad.) affirmed in Asstt. CIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd: 407 ITR 642 PCIT v. Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd: 260 Taxman 273 (Bombay) ACIT vs. Oracle India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 8 (Del. Trib.) North Shore Technologies (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2020] 118 taxmann.com 624 (Del. Trib.) 12. In view of the above, it is submitted that on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned order passed under section 263 of the A…

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…Courts have on multiple occasions observed that corrigendum’s cannot have the effect of rectifying a fundamental jurisdictional defect: - Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP :225 Taxman 35/ 369 ITR 113 (Mad.) affirmed in Asstt. CIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd: 407 ITR 642 - PCIT v. Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd: 260 Taxman 273 (Bombay) - ACIT vs. Oracle India (P.) Ltd. [2018] 93 taxmann.com 8 (Del. Trib.) - North Shore Technologies (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2020] 118 taxmann.com 624 (Del. Trib.) 12. In view of the above, it is submitted that on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned order passed under section 263 of…

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: \nMs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…y. CIT v. Control Risk India (P.) Ltd. [SLP No. 7090 of 2018];\n• Cisco Systems Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., [TS-576-HC- 2021(KAR)-TP];\n• Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. vs. DRP, Chennai [2014] 369 ITR 113 (Madras) [Paras 33 & 34]; affirmed in writ appeal in [2018] 407 ITR 642 (Madras);\n7.4 He submitted that the various time limits provided in section 144C are always construed strictly by the courts, irrespective of whether time limit applies to assessee or to revenue. For example, as provisions of section 144C do not provide for\nPage 27 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\ncondonation of delay in filing of objec…

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 123/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarvs. Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Circle Hyderabad. 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan Aabcjh7867C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Yvst Sai, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Inturi Rama Rao, A.M. : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad Dt.05.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 92CSection 92E

….com 442 iii) JCB India Ltd. Vs. DCIT 398 ITR 189 (Del) iv) Turner International India (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT 398 ITR 177 (Del). Recently, the Hon’ble Madras High Court after making reference to the above decisions in the case of ACIT Vs. Vijay Television (P) Ltd. 407 ITR 642 (Mad), held as follows : “ 46. The Revenue, with a view to squirm around from under wrongful act of passing the assessment order, which is prohibited by law and an unlawful one, 13 had issued a corrigendum, amending the Section under which the order has been passed, forgetting that the content of the order that matters and not the mere quoting…

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

…null and void in the eyes of law. He relied on the following judgments:- Bangalore Tribunal in case of M/s Suretex Prophylactics (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA (TP) 1. 430/Bang/2016) dated April 01,2021 Madras High Court in case of Vijay Television Private 2. Limited (407 ITR 642) dated April 23, 2018 Mumbai Tribunal in case of Lionbridge Technologies Pvt 3. Ltd (ITA 1041/M/2015) dated May 29, 2015 Bombay High Court in case of Lionbridge Technologies 4. Pvt Ltd (ITA 622/2016) dated December 03, 2018 Delhi Tribunal in the case of Olympus Medical Systems 5. India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No 8892/Del/2019) dated August 26, 2020 Pune T…

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V. INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2572/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 156Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)

…null and void in the eyes of law. He relied on the following judgments:- Bangalore Tribunal in case of M/s Suretex Prophylactics (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA (TP) 1. 430/Bang/2016) dated April 01,2021 Madras High Court in case of Vijay Television Private 2. Limited (407 ITR 642) dated April 23, 2018 Mumbai Tribunal in case of Lionbridge Technologies Pvt 3. Ltd (ITA 1041/M/2015) dated May 29, 2015 Bombay High Court in case of Lionbridge Technologies 4. Pvt Ltd (ITA 622/2016) dated December 03, 2018 Delhi Tribunal in the case of Olympus Medical Systems 5. India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No 8892/Del/2019) dated August 26, 2020 Pune T…

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B V INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2888/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)
Section 143(3)

…null and void in the eyes of law. He relied on the following judgments:- 1. Bangalore Tribunal in case of M/s Suretex Prophylactics (India) Pvt Ltd (ITA (TP) 430/Bang/2016) dated April 01, 2021 2. Madras High Courtin case of Vijay Television Private Limited (407 ITR 642) dated April 23, 2018 3. Mumbai Tribunal in case of Lionbridge Technologies Pvt Ltd (ITA 1041/M/2015) dated May 29, 2015 4. Bombay High Court in case of Lionbridge Technologies Pvt Ltd (ITA 622/2016) dated December 03, 2018 5. Delhi Tribunal in the case of Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No 8892/Del/2019) dated August 26, 2020 6. Pun…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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…