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

Naseem Zafar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 207/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…

Nazia Zafar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 8093/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

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…

Daya Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7806/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 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…

Amitabh Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7804/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 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…

Anjul Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7802/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 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…

Jaipur Rugs Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1125/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…o the AE in respect of sale proceeds is not an international transaction and therefore, no notional interest can be added to the income of the assessee. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. Vs DCIT 298 CTR 558 (Del). The ld AR has then relied upon the decision of ACIT Vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2013) 34 taxmann.com 298 (Mum-Trib) and submitted that the Tribunal has considered the issue of allowing the credit to the AE and charging of interest as not an independent international transaction. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We hav…

Jaipur Rugs Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1124/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…o the AE in respect of sale proceeds is not an international transaction and therefore, no notional interest can be added to the income of the assessee. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. Vs DCIT 298 CTR 558 (Del). The ld AR has then relied upon the decision of ACIT Vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2013) 34 taxmann.com 298 (Mum-Trib) and submitted that the Tribunal has considered the issue of allowing the credit to the AE and charging of interest as not an independent international transaction. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We hav…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jaipur Rugs Company (P) Ltd., Jaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1083/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…o the AE in respect of sale proceeds is not an international transaction and therefore, no notional interest can be added to the income of the assessee. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. Vs DCIT 298 CTR 558 (Del). The ld AR has then relied upon the decision of ACIT Vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2013) 34 taxmann.com 298 (Mum-Trib) and submitted that the Tribunal has considered the issue of allowing the credit to the AE and charging of interest as not an independent international transaction. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We hav…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/S Jaipur Rugs Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 738/JPR/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR) &
Section 92CSection 92C(2)

…o the AE in respect of sale proceeds is not an international transaction and therefore, no notional interest can be added to the income of the assessee. He has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd. Vs DCIT 298 CTR 558 (Del). The ld AR has then relied upon the decision of ACIT Vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd. (2013) 34 taxmann.com 298 (Mum-Trib) and submitted that the Tribunal has considered the issue of allowing the credit to the AE and charging of interest as not an independent international transaction. He has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We hav…

JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT (398 ITR 189) — Cited in 49 Judgments | BharatTax