JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT

398 ITR 189High Court2017#2361 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 366,470 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Tally Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 2285/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DRFor Respondent: Smt.Tanamayee Rajkumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.2285/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2007-2008 The Dy.Commissioner of Income- M/s.Tally Solutions Pvt.Ltd. tax, Circle 7(1)(1) No.331-336, Raheja Arcade v. Bangalore. Koramangala Bangalore – 560 095. PAN : AAACP7879D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR Respondent by : Smt.Tanamayee Rajkumar, Advocate Date of Date of Hearing : 08.12.2020 Pronouncement : 08.12.2020 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the Revenue is directed against CIT(A)’…

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

…in remand proceeding a draft assessment order has to be first passed before passing the final assessment order in light with the provisions under Section 144C(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR also pointed out the decision in the case of JCB India Ltd vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd.: [2019] 260 Taxman 273 (Bombay) The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions wherein passing of the draft assessment order in the second round of proceedings has been held to be mandatory and if the same has not…

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

…in remand proceeding a draft assessment order has to be first passed before passing the final assessment order in light with the provisions under Section 144C(1) of the Act. The Ld. AR also pointed out the decision in the case of JCB India Ltd vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 189 (Delhi) and also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Lionbridge Technologies P. Ltd.: [2019] 260 Taxman 273 (Bombay) The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions wherein passing of the draft assessment order in the second round of proceedings has been held to be mandatory and if the same has not…

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

…llegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we quash the assessment orders for both the assessment years.” The Tribunal had placed reliance on the following case laws, while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee :- (a) JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi High Court) (b) Addl.CIT v. Nokia India (P) Ltd. (259 Taxman 81 (SC) (c) ACIT v. Vijay Television (P) Ltd. (2018) 95 taxmann.com 101 (Madras High Court) (ii) JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi High Court) The Hon’ble Court has held that the impugned final assessment order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the Assessing Offi…

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

…illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we quash the assessment orders for both the assessment years.” The Tribunal had placed reliance on the following case laws, while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee :- (a) JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi High Court) 5 M/s.Olam Agro India Pvt.Ltd. (b) Addl.CIT v. Nokia India (P) Ltd. (259 Taxman 81 (SC) (c) ACIT v. Vijay Television (P) Ltd. (2018) 95 taxmann.com 101 (Madras High Court) (ii) JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189 (Delhi High Court) The Hon’ble Court has held that the impugned final assessment order dated 30th March, 20…

Today Realty P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…rectified by the procedural provisions. Section 292B of the Act does not empower the Act to act without jurisdiction and submitted that the aforesaid principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. VS. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189. He requested that keeping in view of the aforesaid argument, the assessment in dispute is without jurisdiction and may be quashed by treating the same as void ab initio. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and stated that on the basis of various documentary evidences, the case of the assessee fo…

Today Realty Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…rectified by the procedural provisions. Section 292B of the Act does not empower the Act to act without jurisdiction and submitted that the aforesaid principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. VS. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 189. He requested that keeping in view of the aforesaid argument, the assessment in dispute is without jurisdiction and may be quashed by treating the same as void ab initio. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities and stated that on the basis of various documentary evidences, the case of the assessee for…

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

…essment order dated 02/03/2018 is bad in law. 10.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We find that this issue has come up for consideration in various Courts and Supreme Court as follows: (a) In the case of JCB India Ltd. vs. DCIT (398 ITR 189) (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that section 144C(1) is unambiguous. It requires the Assessing Officer to pass a draft assessment order after receipt of the report from the TPO. There is nothing in the wording of section 144C(1) which would indicate that this requirement of passing a draft assessment order does not arise where the exercise…

Prity Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…uing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR that section 292B may cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68 can’t be accepted being jurisdictional error and same is the 13 view of Hon’ble Delhi high court in case of JCB case reported at 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 (Pr. Comm…

Nishank Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…uing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR that section 292B may cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68 can’t be accepted being jurisdictional error and same is the 13 view of Hon’ble Delhi high court in case of JCB case reported at 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 (Pr. Comm…

Prem Rattan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…y issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Commi…

Vishal Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…y issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Commi…

Kamlesh Rani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8218/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…y issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Commi…

Aashna Capital Services (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…uing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR that section 292B may cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68 can’t be accepted being jurisdictional error and same is the 13 view of Hon’ble Delhi high court in case of JCB case reported at 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 (Pr. Comm…

Rekha Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Ms. Rekha Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 55(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Comm…

Rima Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7211/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…y issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Commi…

Vinesh Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…y issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Commi…

Surender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8219/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

…issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Comm…

Amit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2724/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Amit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahpg2528C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69CSection 69c

…issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 (Pr. Comm…

Naseem Saad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 208/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…y issuing a show cause notice.” 8.1 Accordingly plea of Ld DR 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 case reported at 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 13 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 (Pr. C…