JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT

398 ITR 189High Court2017#2386 most cited

What is JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The requirement to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act is mandatory. A final assessment order issued without such a draft order is a nullity, constituting an incurable jurisdictional error that cannot be saved by Section 292B, even in set-aside proceedings following an ITAT remand.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 144C · draft assessment order mandatory · final assessment order nullity · Section 292B · jurisdictional error · incurable illegality · set aside proceedings · 398 ITR 189

Also reported as

298 CTR 558

Sections most often in play

Section 10(3) (Black Money Act)Section 115CSection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B(1)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 292bsection 292section 29final assessment ordersection 153section 15transfercompanysection 14indiadocumentinterest

Judgments citing JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 900/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 899 To 902/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Damandeep Kaur बनाम The ACIT House No. 2368., Phase X, Mohali Central Circle-2, Chandigarh Punjab-160055 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ALCPK6320J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Virsain Agg…

GUPTA PRIME RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 549/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 250Section 271ASection 69

…AO it is expenditure. Accordingly plea of ld. D/R that section 292B may cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68 can’t be accepted being jurisdictional error and same is the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of JCB India Ltd. vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189 wherein it is held that :- “19. As already noted, the final assessment order of the AO stood vitiated not on account of mere irregularity but since it was an incurable illegality. Section 292B of the Act would not protect such an order. This has been explained by this Court in its decision dated 17th July 2015 passed in ITA No. 275/2015 6 Gupta…

M/S ALPHA ELSEC DEFENCE & AEROSPACE SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 912/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ses for fresh assessment of issues referred to the AO (refer para 3 at page 4 of the High Court judgement). 8 Alpha Elsec Defence & Aerospace Systems Pvt. Ld. 14. Moreover the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Del) had rejected the contention of the Revenue that since assessment itself was not cancelled by ITAT or completely set aside, there is no necessity to pass the draft assessment order in the set aside proceedings. The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (refer para 16) read as foll…

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1850/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 152Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…ke made by the A.O. The ld. A.R further contended that they had given a detailed submission on this issue before the ld. CIT(A) which is also placed on record before us, that as per the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2017) 398 ITR 189/251 Taxman 143 which was also relied upon by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Amitabh Bansal (2019) 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi-Trib), where it was categorically held that section 292B cannot be invoked to cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68 of the Act. If final assessment order is completed under a particular provision of the Act,…

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 264/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…igh Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated 21.1.2020. It was the submission that for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, as the Assessing Officer has not proposed any draft assessment order as per the mandate of section 144C(1) & (2) an…

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 263/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…igh Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated 21.1.2020. It was the submission that for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, as the Assessing Officer has not proposed any draft assessment order as per the mandate of section 144C(1) & (2) an…

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(1), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARASUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 262/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…igh Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated 21.1.2020. It was the submission that for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, as the Assessing Officer has not proposed any draft assessment order as per the mandate of section 144C(1) & (2) an…

ACIT(CIRCLE-1(1),, SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 261/CTK/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…igh Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated 21.1.2020. It was the submission that for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, as the Assessing Officer has not proposed any draft assessment order as per the mandate of section 144C(1) & (2) an…

ACIT,CIRCLE-1(!), SAMBALPUR vs. M/S. TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED, JHARSUGUDHA

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 260/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…igh Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated 21.1.2020. It was the submission that for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, as the Assessing Officer has not proposed any draft assessment order as per the mandate of section 144C(1) & (2) an…

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

…- VS. Asst. Commr. Of IT (AP High Court) W.P. No.5557 of 2012 8 2) Asst. Commr. Of IT Vs Zuari Cement Ltd. (SC) CC 16694/2013 3) IATA Vs Dy. Commr. Of IT & Ors. (Bombay High Court) 68 Taxmann.Com 246 4) JCB India Ltd. - Vs Dy. Commr. Of IT (Delhi High Court 398 ITR 189 5) Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. - Dy. Commr. Of IT (Delhi High Court) 398 ITR 177 6) Commissioner of IT Vs C-Sam (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Gujarat High Court) 398 ITR 182 7) Control Risk India Pvt. Ltd. - Vs Dy. Commr. Of IT (Delhi High Court) WP 5722/2017 8) Dy. Commr. Of IT Vs Control Risk India Pvt. Ltd. - SLP No.7090/2018 9) Honda Cars India…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GRUNER INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 6748/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Gruner India Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 10 (2) Vs 15, Dsidc, Okhla Industrial New Delhi Area, Phase-Ii, Scheme-1, New Delhi Pan No.Aadcg2938H (Appellan (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234BSection 254Section 274Section 92C

…AO. 13. We find that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Stryker India Private Limited (supra) has observed as under :- 5. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in JCB India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 155/251 Taxman 143/398 ITR 189 to say that such orders, which contravene express provisions of law, are to be treated as nullity and have no further consequence. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, urges that the defect found exist is a curable one and urges that this Court should follow the approach adopted in BSC C&C Joint Venture v. Jt. CIT[W.P.(C) 7623…

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASSISTANT OF INCOME TAX -1,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ,HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 116/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…ia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) holds that section 144C is a mandatory provisions which is hardly any issue. Hon’ble Delhi high court in JCB India Limited Vs. DCIT 25 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) came across an assessment framed without any draft assessment order in second round proceedings. We thus hold that the foregoing judicial precedents hardly come to the assessee's rescue. We rather deem it appropriate to quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT Vs. B R Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 as to what amounts to…

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,PEDDAPALLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1127/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…ia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) holds that section 144C is a mandatory provisions which is hardly any issue. Hon’ble Delhi high court in JCB India Limited Vs. DCIT 25 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) came across an assessment framed without any draft assessment order in second round proceedings. We thus hold that the foregoing judicial precedents hardly come to the assessee's rescue. We rather deem it appropriate to quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT Vs. B R Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 as to what amounts to…

APTAR BEAUTY AND HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF APTAR PHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 100/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Aptar Pharma India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited (Successor Of Aptar Of Income Tax, Beauty & Home India Private Circle 1(1), Limited), Hyderabad. Navi Mumbai – 400701. Pan : Aaacv8607M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aptar Beauty & Home Vs. The Deputy Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income Tax, (Successor Of Aptar Circle 1(1), Pharma India Private Hyderabad. Limited), Navi Mumbai – 400701. Pan : Aaace5382N.

For Appellant: Shri P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 92C

…ile. We thus quote Zuari Cement Ltd. Vs. ACIT W.P.No.5557/2012 dt.21.02.2013 (A.P) (upheld in Revenue’s special leave petition “SLP” filed in hon’ble apex court), Vijay Television (P) Ltd. Vs. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad) and JCB India Limited Vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) that such an assessment involving transfer pricing proceedings without a draft assessment is a nullity. We accordingly quash the assessment herein dt.26.03.2017. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered infructuous. The assessee succeeds in its latter appeal ITA No.100/Hyd/2019. Ordered accordingly. 4. The assessee’s former appeal ITA…

APTAR PHARMA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(SUCCESSOR OF APTAR BEAUTY AND HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), , HYDERABAD

ITA 946/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13 Aptar Pharma India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited (Successor Of Aptar Of Income Tax, Beauty & Home India Private Circle 1(1), Limited), Hyderabad. Navi Mumbai – 400701. Pan : Aaacv8607M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aptar Beauty & Home Vs. The Deputy Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income Tax, (Successor Of Aptar Circle 1(1), Pharma India Private Hyderabad. Limited), Navi Mumbai – 400701. Pan : Aaace5382N.

For Appellant: Shri P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar
Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 92C

…ile. We thus quote Zuari Cement Ltd. Vs. ACIT W.P.No.5557/2012 dt.21.02.2013 (A.P) (upheld in Revenue’s special leave petition “SLP” filed in hon’ble apex court), Vijay Television (P) Ltd. Vs. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad) and JCB India Limited Vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) that such an assessment involving transfer pricing proceedings without a draft assessment is a nullity. We accordingly quash the assessment herein dt.26.03.2017. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered infructuous. The assessee succeeds in its latter appeal ITA No.100/Hyd/2019. Ordered accordingly. 4. The assessee’s former appeal ITA…

CSATERRPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH,GODAVARIKHANI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2072/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…ia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) holds that section 144C is a mandatory provisions which is hardly any issue. Hon’ble Delhi high court in JCB India Limited Vs. DCIT 25 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) came across an assessment framed without any draft assessment order in second round proceedings. We thus hold that the foregoing judicial precedents hardly come to the assessee's rescue. We rather deem it appropriate to quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT Vs. B R Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 as to what amounts to…

CATTERPILLAR MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE, KARIMNAGAR,KARIMNAGAR vs. DCIT-1, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 483/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…ia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) holds that section 144C is a mandatory provisions which is hardly any issue. Hon’ble Delhi high court in JCB India Limited Vs. DCIT 25 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) came across an assessment framed without any draft assessment order in second round proceedings. We thus hold that the foregoing judicial precedents hardly come to the assessee's rescue. We rather deem it appropriate to quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT Vs. B R Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 as to what amounts to…

CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING EUROPE GMBH-INDIA PROJECT OFFICE,KARIMNAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATION TAXATION-1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…ia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) holds that section 144C is a mandatory provisions which is hardly any issue. Hon’ble Delhi high court in JCB India Limited Vs. DCIT 25 ITA Nos.610/Hyd/2014; 483/Hyd/2015; 2072/Hyd/2017; 1127/Hyd/2019 and 116/Hyd/2021. (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) came across an assessment framed without any draft assessment order in second round proceedings. We thus hold that the foregoing judicial precedents hardly come to the assessee's rescue. We rather deem it appropriate to quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT Vs. B R Constructions (1993) 202 ITR 222 as to what amounts to…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 24(2), NEW DELHI vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 7733/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu S. SDinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 153Section 254

…sing a draft assessment order which is a mandatory requirement in terms of section 144C of the Act. This issue is well settled in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of JCB India Ltd 398 ITR 189. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court read as under: “16. In response, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Revenue, submitted that there was an efficacious alternative remedy available to the Petitioner to file appeals against the impugned final assessment orders passed by t…

SURETEX PROPHYLACTICS (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.430/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 271Section 274

…t.Ltd., reported in (2019) 260 Taxmann 273/Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of International Air Transport Association vs DCIT reported in (2016) 290 CTR 46/Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of JCB India Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 189/Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Turner International India Pvt.Ltd., vs DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 177/Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vijay Television (2014) 369 ITR 113. 10. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR submitted that, order passed by assessing officer is valid as per section 144C of the Act. She placed r…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3