PCIT v. Kaizen Products Private Limited

406 ITR 311High Court2018#20902 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing PCIT v. Kaizen Products Private Limited

WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1610/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 263Section 43C

…e assessee submitted that the issue of notice in the name of non-existent company is void ab initio. For this proposition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the various case laws, which reads as under:- i. CIT vs Kaizen Products Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 311 (Del.) ii. Varnika RPG Trust and Ors. Vs CIT (2021) 91 ITR (Trib.) 135 (ITAT Del.) iii. CIT vs Aarcee Holding Pvt. Ltd. G.A. No.1921 of 2014(Calcutta HC) iv. Bbigplas Poly Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT ITA No.529/2021 (ITAT Kolkata) v. Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (ITA No.371/2020 (ITAT Kolkata) vi. Snowhill Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2020) 79 I…

BIC CELLO (INDIA) P. LTD. (BIC INDIA) (AS SECCESSOR TO BIC CELLO EXPORTS P.LTD.),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 777/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Bic Cello (India) P. Ltd. (As Successor To Bic Cello Pr.Cit(Central)-3 Exports P.Ltd) Room No-1991, 19Thfloor, G-1,701/702, Lotus Air India Building, Nariman Vs. Corporate Park, Jaicoach W Point, Mumbai-400 021 E Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc9698R Assessee By : Shri. Dhanesh Bafana & Ms. Hirali Desai. Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing: 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09-11-2022

For Appellant: Shri. Dhanesh Bafana, & MsFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Successor to Bic Cello Exports P. Ltd; A.Y. 2015-16 therefore same is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The learned authorized representative heavily relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Kaizen Products Private Limited 406 ITR 311 as well as the decision of Kolkata bench of ITAT Emerald Company Ltd Vs ITO on 176 TTJ 276. The learned authorized representative also relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited Civil Appeal No. 5409 of 2019 wherein the order passed on the non-existingcompany was quashed. He also stated t…

M/S. SURZLON GLOBAL SERVICES LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 67-68/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 M/S. Suzlon Global Services Limited, Principal Commissioner 5 Suzlon, Shrimali Society, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Near Shree Krishna Centre, Ahmedabad. Nr. Judges Bunglow Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aaics1406R

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 32

…pany. Consequently, such assessment cannot be made subject to revision under section 263 of the Act. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Kaizen Products (P.) Ltd. reported in [2018] 406 ITR 311 (Delhi) where it was held as under: 14. In the present case, it is not in dispute that KPPL ceased to exist as a result of the order dated 8th October, 2010 passed by this Court whereby its merger with Ventura stood approved. Ventura was later renamed as ARSPL. These facts were known to the AO in the course of the assessment proceedings. The stat…

GOLDCITY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2179/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhgoldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of [Now Merged With Supergold Vs. Income-Tax -14, R. No. 415, 4Th Floor, Properties Pvt. Ltd.], Shop No.1, Building No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, Sharmik Chs Ltd., Tilak M.K. Road, Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400089. Pan: Aaccg1757H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 152(2)Section 254(1)Section 263

…TA 4746/M/2012 dated 10.01.2014, (xvii) Bhavesh Vs CIT ( ITA No. 5688/M/2014 dated 25.03.2015, (xviii) CIT Vs Fine Jewellers (India) (ITA No 296 of 2013 dated 03.02.2015, (xix) CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma ( 335 ITR 83 Delhi), (xx) PCIT Vs Kaizen Products (P) Ld (406 ITR 311 Delhi), (xxi) DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388 Delhi) (xxii) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO (2690 & 2691/ M/2016) dated 06.05.2016. 12. The following documents were filed by the ld AR for the assessee; (i) Copy of return of income with computation of income with Audited report, (ii) Notice under section 148 dated 23.03.2016, (iii) Notice under sec…