How many judgments cite PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.?

308 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (416 ITR 613), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 292B, Section 143(2), Section 142(1).

PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

416 ITR 613Supreme Court of India2019#253 most cited

What is PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. authority for?

A notice issued under section 148 to a non-existent entity, such as an amalgamating company post-merger, is a substantive illegality, rendering assessment proceedings void ab initio. Participation in such proceedings does not estop the assessee from challenging the validity of the notice.

308

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. · section 148 · section 143(2) · non-existent entity · amalgamating company · merger · void ab initio · substantive illegality · estoppel · reassessment proceedings

Also reported as

107 Taxmann.com 375265 Taxmann 515

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 292B Section 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 170 transferor company transferee company section 2(1a)section 2(31)section 159 section 39 amalgamation section 292b scheme of arrangement section 292 legal representative

Judgments citing PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3476/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 14ASection 36Section 37(1)Section 43B

…rding to the Learned Counsel of the assessee, the assessment has been completed by the Assessing Officer on non-existent entity, which is void ab initio in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (2019) 416 ITR 613(SC). The Learned Counsel also relied on the ITAT Mumbai Bench decision in the case of State Bank of India (successor to erstwhile state Bank of Indore) in ITA Nos. 277 to 280/Mum/2022 and State Bank of India (successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) in ITA No. 2875/Mum/2019. 8. The Learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that in view of th…

Mrs. Hetal Patel L/H of Late Mr. Dharmesh Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1632/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1632/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2010-11 Hetal Patel, The Income Tax L/H Late Mr Dharmesh Y Patel, Vs. Officer, 21A Bhavanipura Society, Ward-4(2)(1), Nizampura, Ahmedabad. Vadodara-390007. Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…pila vs. ACIT – 426 ITR 502 (Del.) Bhavnaben S. Patel LH of Late Sanmukhbhai Patel SCA 20437 of 2018 Alamelu Verrapn vs.ITO – (2018) 257 Taxman 72 (Madras) Urmilaben Anurudhsinhji Jadeja vs. ITO – 420 ITR 226 (Gujarat) PCIT vs. maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) Chandresh Jayantibhai Patel vs. ITO – (2019) 413 ITR 276 (Gujarat) 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that there was no information available with the department about the demise of the assessee. Thus, in the absence of any information, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act in the name of the assessee and therefore the assessment…

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek

Section 153ASection 68

…r Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. various notices issued in the name of the non-existent entity were illegal and bad in law. For this, the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that an order issued in the name of a non- existent company (amalgamating company) was a substantive illegality which was not curable under section 292B of the Act. 9. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) has discussed various judicial precedence and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndi…

31 Infotechconsultancy Services Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT - 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1170/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () 3I Infotech Consultancy Services Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Limited, Tower No.5, 3Rd To 6Th Tax-11(3)(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Floors, International Infortech Park Bhavan, Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan : Aaacz3181E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 72A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & SMT. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) 3i Infotech Consultancy Services vs Assistant Commissioner of Income- Limited, Tower No.5, 3rd to 6th tax-11(3)(1), 4th Floor, Aayakar Floors, International Infortech Park Bhavan, Mumbai Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 PAN : AAACZ3181E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis, CA & Akash Department represented by Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. AR Date of hearing 29/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 21/09/2022 ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (…

State Bank of India (Sucessor to Erstwhile State Bank of Indore), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 277/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

…, thereby rendering the entire assessment proceedings void ab intitio against the non- existent entity." In this regard, the assessee has primarily relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC). 2. It is submitted although the assessee has vehemently contended that the AO has gravely erred in law by passing the assessment orders on a non-existent entity yet the record and the assessee's own exist after 25.08.2010. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention the following undisputed and irrefutable facts: (a) It is seen from Form No.…

Sony Pictures Networks India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 2130/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2130/मुं/2017 ("न.व .2012-13) Culver Max Entertainment Private Limited [Formerly Known As Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited (As Successor To Spe Networks- India Inc. (‘Speni’) Which Has Merged Into Spni With Effect From An Appointed Date Of 1 April 2015) Erstwhile Multi Screen Media Private Limited] Interface Building No.7, 5Th Floor, Off Malad Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 064. Pan: Aabcs-1728-D ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Asstt.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Range-4(2)(2),Mumbai, Room No.!624, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri P.J.Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate With Ms.Aarati Sathe, Anchal Gupta & Umedmal Jain. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma With Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Aarati SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma with Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)

…e final 3 assessment order dated 31/01/2017 in the name of a non-existing entity. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported as 416 ITR 613, the assessment order passed in the name of non- existing entity is non-est and unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, Ms. Surabhi Sharma representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that intimation regarding change of name was conveyed to the Assessing Officer after…

M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Epp Composites Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Plot No.2646, Gidc Metoda, Of Income Tax, Rajkot – 1. Rajkot. [Pan – Aabce 2957 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2018 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Rajkot For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 195Section 263Section 40Section 9

…in India. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Limited (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC), Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 1 (SC) and Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). The Ld. AR alternately contended that if it is held that there was error in the order of assessment as stated by the PCIT, the directions of the PCIT be modified to allow deduction of Rs.1,37,56,848/- in the year of payment of TDS. 6. Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not taken cognisance of the delayed payment of TDS to the…

Biocon Biologics Limited (Formerly Known As Biocon Biologics India Limited) (Successor to Biocon Research Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 299/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Biocon Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Biologics India Limited) Bengaluru. Ground Floor, Tower 3, Semicon Park, Hosur Road, Electronics City S.O. Bangalore South – 560 100. Pan : Aagcb7796M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee, Namely, Biocon Biologics Limited [Successor. To Biocon Research Limited With Appointed Date 01.04.2019] Is Engaged In The Carrying Out Research & Development ("R & D") Of Drugs & Drug Delivery Systems. For The Relevant Assessment Year ("Ay") 2017-18, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2017, Declaring `Nil’ Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The I.T.Act & Book Losses As 2 It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022. M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited Per The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The I.T.Act. After Considering The Taxes Deducted At Source, The Assessee Had Claimed Refund Of Inr 4,68,29,020 In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…he assessment has been completed on a non-existing entity, inspite of repeated intimation to the Assessing Officer, and therefore, the same is bad in law. In this context, the learned AR relied on the following case laws:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) (ii) Intel Technology India (P) Ltd. 380 ITR 272 (Kar.) (iii) eMudhra Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 550 (Kar.) 8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. reported in (2022) 443 ITR 194 (SC) and the finding of the DRP.…

M/S Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income

Appeals are allowed

ITA/371/2015HC Karnataka12 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA INCOME TAX APPEAL No.371 OF 2015 C/W INCOME TAX APPEAL No.372 OF 2015 INCOME TAX APPEAL No.373 OF2015 In I.T.A.No.371/2015 BETWEEN: M/s. TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD, [ERSTWHILE TRISHUL DEVELOPERS], REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI K.PRAKASH SHETTY, No.9, ALI ASKAR ROAD, OFF.CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI A SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR…

M/S Trishul Build Tech vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income

Appeals are allowed

ITA/373/2015HC Karnataka12 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153ASection 260

M/S Trishul Build Tech Infrastructure vs. The Joint Commissioner of

Appeals are allowed

ITA/372/2015HC Karnataka12 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 153ASection 260

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. Pnb Housing Finance Ltd

In the result, the appeals filed by the

ITA/308/2022HC Delhi07 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)

…ITA 308/2022 Page 1 of 6 $~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 308/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and Mr. ParthSemwal, Jr. Standing Counsel. versus MS. PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. S. Krishnan with Mr. Amandeep Mehta, Advocates. % Date of Decision:07thSeptember, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): CM APPL.38912/2022 (for condonation of delay) Keeping in view the averments made i…

PCIT, Delhi-7 vs. M/S Pnb Housing Finance Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA/307/2022HC Delhi06 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 36

…ITA No.307/2022 Page 1 of 2 $~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 307/2022 PCIT, DELHI-7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr.Standing Counsel for the Revenue. versus M/S PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD ..... Respondent Through: % Date of Decision: 06th September, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present income tax appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14th October, 2021 passed in ITA No.6352/Del./2018 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT has…

Namrata Kapale, Chindwara vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)Section 159(2)(b)Section 263

…n CIT v. Hemanathan (M.) [2016] 384 ITR 177 (Mad) – which also considers the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Kaushalyabai v. CIT [1998] 238 ITR 1008 (MP), and which was not. Reliance is placed on Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); and Sheela Devi v. Pr. CIT (in ITA No. 1853/Del/2021, dated 03/03/2022/WS-1, pgs. 4-14). In the former, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on the amalgamating company despite communication of the fact of its amalgamation to the assessing authority, while in the latter, notice u/s. 263 was issued, as in the instant case, on a person no longer ali…

Saurabh Singhai L/H Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer-3 Sagar, Sagar

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…by the parties, is of the appellant as the representative assessee of his late father, MKJ. The assessee‟s challenge is without merit. 4.1 The next, without prejudice argument advanced, placing reliance on the decision in Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC), was that the notice u/s. 263 and, indeed, the impugned order u/s. 263, stands framed, again 4 Saurabh Singhai v. ITO in the name of the assessee‟s father, late Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain (MKJ), so that the same is a nullity in law. In our view, the reliance is misconceived. The whole premise of the proceedings, validly initiated, as would als…

M/S Gokuldas Exports vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is allowed

ITA/635/2016HC Karnataka19 Jul 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,C.M. POONACHA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 260Section 3Section 45(4)

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ITA No.635/2016 BETWEEN: M/S GOKULDAS EXPORTS (ERSTWHILE PARTNERSHIP FIRM) PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S GOKALDAS EXPORTS LIMITED, NO.16/2,RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 025 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI: A.SHANKAR SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHAIRAV KUTTAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(2) 80 FEET ROAD, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: K.V. ARABIND, AD…

M/S Marlabs Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Marlabs Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (Successor Of Marlabs Software Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 14Th Floor, Citrine Block-4, Commissioner Of Bagmane World Technology Income Tax, Centre, Circle – 4(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Vs. Bangalore. Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aaccm6627Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri L. Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/12/2018 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Various Issues On The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made In Respect Of The International Transactions Between Assessee & Its Ae.

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 394

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Marlabs Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (Successor of Marlabs Software Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 14th Floor, Citrine Block-4, Commissioner of Bagmane World Technology Income Tax, Centre, Circle – 4(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Vs. Bangalore. Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru – 560 048. PAN: AACCM6627Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri L. Bharath, CA Revenue by : Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13-07-2022…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur vs. Shri Sudhir Kumar Rawat, Jabalpur

ITA 63/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR

Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…llate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, form part of the Tribunals’ record. 5. We, accordingly, hold as under: a). the penalty u/s. 271D, though not time barred, is not maintainable in the absence of the necessary jurisdiction (see: Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 381 (Raj)). b). the penalty levied is for the default specified u/s. 269-T, and though merited on the whole sum and, in any case, part thereof, is not sustainable in the absence of any penalty having been initiated or levied u/s. 271-E. 6. We, in view of the foregoing, vacate the findings by the ld.…

M/S. Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle -1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Rajathadri DC Office complex ACIT (Exemptions) Endpoint, Manipal Circle-1 Vs. Udupi 576 104 Mangaluru PAN NO :AAATU1950D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT AssessmentYear:2016-17 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra Deputy Commissioner of Udupi 576 104 Income-tax (Exemptions) Vs…

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kedra, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Mangaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)