P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT 397 ITR 529 (Delhi), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

364 ITR 600High Court2014#12733 most cited

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

Sections most often in play

Section 144 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 179 Section 250 Section 263 Section 281(1)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

section 170 section 2(31)section 39 resulting company transferee company carry forward of losses transferor company demerger section 48 section 17 amalgamation section 292b

Judgments citing P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT 397 ITR 529 (Delhi), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

VARAM CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.V.Muthuabhirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2017] 85 taxmann. com 146 / 397 ITR 529 (Delhi) - Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 284/382 ITR 443 (Delhi) - Khurana Engineering Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 261/217 Taxman 75 (Mag.)/ [2014] 364 ITR 600 (Guj) - Takshashila Realties (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 160 (Guj.) - Alamelu Veerappan v. ITO [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72 (Mad.) 10. In the present case, we have gone through para 12 of the order dated 09.07.2020 passed by the NCLT (Page 5-13 of P.B.-1). The concerned DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai also issued a…

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

ITA 170/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A. (thr. V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 234ASection 250

…officer, is\nvoid ab initio as held in the following decisions:\na) BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT - [2017] 397 ITR 529 (Del)\nb) Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v DCIT - [2016] 382 ITR 443 (Del)\nc) Khurana Engineering Ltd. v DCIT - [2014] 364 ITR 600 (Guj)\nd) Takshashila Realties (P) Ltd. v DCIT - [2017] 77 taxmann.com 160 (Guj.)\ne) Alamelu Veerappanv ITO - [2018] 257 Taxman 72 (Madras)\nFurther, the case laws relied upon at the time of filing written submissions before the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) are as follows:-\nS.no Name of the case\nCitation/ Appeal Remarks\nNo.\n20\nITA No. 170/JPR/2024\nAksh…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)(1), MUMBAI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MUMBAI vs. ESSAR POWER JAMNAGAR LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2463/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Essar Power Jamnagar Ltd., Ward 6(2)(1), 11, Essar House, K.K. Marg, Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 034 (Pan : Aabce8921G) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1062839468(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(2)(4), U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Citia) Was Justified In Declaring The Assessment Order Passed As Nullity Without Considering The Fact That The Assessee Was In Existence When The Transactions Were Made? 2. "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Citia) Was Justified In Treating The Assessment Proceedings As Without Jurisdiction, Without Considering The Fact That The Reference Can Be Made For Revival Of Companies From The Date Of Strike Off, As Per The Instruction By The Cbdt Vide Letter Dated 29.12.2017?

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 148Section 560

…hroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 (SC) 5. CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC). 6. CIT v. Vived Marketing Servicing (P.) Ltd. ITA No. 273/2009 order dated 17.09.2009 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court 7. Khurana Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (OSD) [2014] 364 ITR 600/[2013] 217 Taxman 75 (Mag.)/34 taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) 8. Torrent (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (SCA No. 5857 of 2004, judgment dated 29.04.2013 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. 4 Essar Power Jamnagar Ltd., AY 2011-12 9. CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) 10. CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P.) Ltd. ITA No. 684/20…

ACIT CIRCLE 1(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. M B PATIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED , MUMBAI

ITA 98/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

…& Network India (P.) Ltd. 402 ITR 21 (Delhi), Spice Entertainment (supra), BDR Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT 397 ITR 529 (Delhi), Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 382ITR 443 (Delhi), Khurana Engineering Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2014] 364 ITR 600 (Guj), Takshashila Realties (P.) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 160 (Guj.), Alamelu Veerappan vs. ITO 257 Тахтап 72 (Mad.). e) The order passed by the TPO in the name of SPIL, a nonexistent entity was invalid in the eyes of the law; f) SPIL ceased to be an "eligible assessee", in terms of section 144C(15) (b) of the Act. Consequently, the…

M/S M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, , DELHI

ITA 303/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

ACIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GLINT INFRAPORJECTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3594/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 9(3)(2), M/S. Glint Infraprojects 418, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, (Keystone Stockfin Pvt Mumbai - 400020 Ltd. Merged In Glint Vs. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.), 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aadcg 5620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.277/M/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3594/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Glint Infraprojects Dcit 9(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, (Keystone Stockfin Pvt Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Merged In Glint Mumbai - 400020 Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aadcg 5620L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 03.02.2017 Of The Commissioner Of 2 M/S. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2007-08. Besides The Assessee Has Challenged The Jurisdiction Of The Ao To Re-Open & Frame Assessment On Legal Grounds By Way Of Cross Objections.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 68

…ith 'D' by virtue of the judgment of High Court dated 4-5-2012. Though this order was passed on 4-5-2012. Though this order was passed on 4-5-2012, the effective date of amalgamation was 1-4-2010. Division Bench in case of Khurana Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2014) 364 ITR 600/[20131 217 Taxman 75 (Mag./34 taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) had held that once the assessee-company had amalgamated with the transferee company, its independent existence did not survive, and therefore, it would no longer be amenable to assessment proceedings. For such purpose, the Court had quashed the notice on the company which had already merged, fo…

DCIT 9(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. GLINT INFRAPORJECTS P.LTD (KEYSTONE STOCKFIN PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED IN GLINT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5758/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Joshi, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

…th 'D' by virtue of the judgment of High Court dated 4-5-2012. Though this order was passed on 4-5- 2012. Though this order was passed on 4-5-2012, the effective date of amalgamation was 1-4-2010. Division Bench in case of Khurana Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2014) 364 ITR 600/[20131 217 Taxman 75 (Mag./34 taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) had held that once the assessee-company had amalgamated with the transferee company, its independent existence did not survive, and therefore, it would no longer be amenable to assessment proceedings. For such purpose, the Court had quashed the notice on the company which had already merged, fo…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

C.A. No.-005409-005409 - 2019Supreme Court25 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 92C

…tion 153(1) read with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: 19 [2017] 397 ITR 529 (Del) 20 [2016] 382 ITR 443 (Del) 21 [2014] 364 ITR 600 (Guj) 22 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 160 (Guj.) 23 [2018] 257 Taxman 72 (Madras) 13 • In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date has to be in the name of the amalgamated company as successor in interest of the amalgamat…