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.

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Assistant 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 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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)

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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)

Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Mangaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mangaluru

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

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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)

M/S. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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)

Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…come from Business Centre has been assessed as Business income. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC), CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) and CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 416 ITR 613 (SC). 6.8.3 The contention of the assessee is that it has not let out any property or part thereof, instead it has been allowing the spaces for commercial use by commercially exploiting the property for the purpose of business. Therefore the impugned income from Business Centre is assessable as business income and not as income from house proper…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S. Micro Forge (India) Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Acit, Cir.5 M/S.Micro Forge (India) Ltd. Rajkot. Vs B/H. Kishan Petrol Pump Po-Tb Hospital Kangasiyali Rajkot.

For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 33

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ "यायपीठ, , , , राजकोट "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 ACIT, Cir.5 M/s.Micro Forge (India) Ltd. Rajkot. Vs B/h. Kishan Petrol Pump PO-TB Hospital Kangasiyali Rajkot. (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 0…

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2875/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blestate Bank Of India V. Acit – 2(2)(1) {Successor To State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur} Room No. 545 State Bank Of India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai - 400020 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aadcs4750R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – 2(2)(1) V. M/S. State Bank Of India Room No. 545, 5Th Floor {Successor To State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur} State Bank Of India Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Financial Reporting & Taxation Mumbai - 400020 3Rd Floor, Sbi Bhavan, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aaacs8577 (Earlier Aadcs4750R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Paridiwala Department By : Shri Jasbir Chowhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. ParidiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chowhan

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

…e Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is merged with M/s. State Bank of India still he passed an order in the name of the non existing entity. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC). 4. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the Assessing Officer has clearly understood and recorded that the erstwhile company State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur was acquired by/amalgamated into M/s. State Bank of Indi…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Power Links Transmission Ltd

In uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations

ITA/87/2022HC Delhi18 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)

…ITA Nos.87/2022 & 90/2022 Page 1 of 4 $~47 & 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 87/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel. versus POWER LINKS TRANSMISSION LTD ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 90/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, senior standing counsel. versus POWER LINKS TRANSMISSION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None % Date of Decision: 18th April, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present appeals h…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7 vs. Power Links Transmission Ltd

In uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations

ITA - 90 / 2022HC Delhi18 Apr 2022

Section 260ASection 36(1)(iii)

DCIT, Chennai vs. Narmada Infrastructure Construction Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013 – 14 The Dcit, M/S. L & T Infrastructure Corporate Circle – 4(1), V. Development Projects Ltd., Chennai - 34. (Formerly Narmada Infrastructure Construction Enterprises Ltd.,), Post Box No.979, Mount Poonamalle Road, Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 089. Pan: Aaacn 3579L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 66/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 946/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013 – 14 M/S. L & T Infrastructure The Dcit, Development Projects Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 4(1), (Formerly Narmada Infrastructure Chennai - 34. Construction Enterprises Ltd.,), Post Box No.979, Mount Poonamalle Road, Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 089. Pan: Aaacn 3579L राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं डॉ एम एल मीना, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND Dr. M.L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:946/CHNY/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013 – 14 The DCIT, M/s. L & T Infrastructure Corporate Circle – 4(1), v. Development Projects Ltd., Chennai - 34. (formerly Narmada Infrastructure Construction Enterprises Ltd.,), Post Box No.979, Mount Poonamalle Road, Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 089. PAN: AAACN 3579L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. N…

Hemant M. Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT 33 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6483/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehemant M Mehta Huf Vs. Acit – 33(2), A-307/308, Ekta Room No. 302, 3Rd Terrace, Dahanuru Floor, C-11, Wadi, Kandivili (W), Pratyakshakr Bhavan, Maharashtra – 400 067 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aachh8909M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok Bansal & Shri Ajay Daga.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Neena Jeph. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal &For Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292

…Rizwan Prop. Allahabad HC –ITA no.100 of 2015 dated 30-03-2017. and 2. P.N Sasikumar and Ors. Vs. CIT, 1988, 170 ITR 80, Kerala HC. 7. We further support our view relying on the ratio of the Honble Supreme Court decision in Pr.CIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 416 ITR 613 ( S C ), that the notice issued on non existing person and the assessment order passed is bad in law. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2022. (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADAL…

Accenture Solution Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7457/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7457/मुं/2018 ("न. व. 2014-15 ) Accenture Solutions Private Limited(‘Asol) [As A Successor To Accenture Services Private Limited (“Aspl”) Which Has Merged Into Asol With An Effective Date Of 1 December 2016] Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, Phirojshah Nagar, Vikhroli West, Off Lbs Marg, Mumbai 400 079. Pan: Aaach-3235-M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate With Shri Hiten Chande ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat Cit Dr & Shri Satya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hiten ChandeFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat CIT DR &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…and it is only amalgamated company i.e. successor company has legal entity and existence in the eye of law. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported as 416 ITR 613 to contend that when the assessee company is amalgamated with another company and thereby lose its existence, the subsequent assessment order passed in the name of non-existing entity, the said assessment order is without any jurisdiction and hence, liable to be set-aside. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in Assessment Year…

Honda Carss India Ltd ( A Successor in Interest of Honda Motor India P.Ltd ), Gr. Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 629/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘I-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (A successor in interest of Circle-10(1), Honda Motor India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Noida PAN :AABCH7526E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Deepak Chopra, Advocate Sh. Harpreet S. Ajmani, Advocate Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Surender Pal, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 23.12.2021 Date of pronouncement 23.03.2022 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:…

Late Shri Jayantilal Kalidas Shah. L/H Shri Japan N Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedbad

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

ITA 990/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…d against legal representatives. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Urmilaben Anirudhsinhji Jadeja vs. ITO, reported in 420 ITR 226 (Gujarat), PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) and Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. ITO, reported in (2019) 413 ITR 276 (Gujarat). The ratio laid down in the order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamela Veerappan vs. ITO, reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72 (Mad.) has also been considered by us where the ratio as above has been laid down.” Late…

Bbigplas Poly Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pcit, Kolkata-1 Bbigplas Poly Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Room No. 22A, Vs. 23, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072. Pan: Aadck7909G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Smt. Puja Somani, Ca Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit. Date Of Hearing :18.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement :.07.03.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Ld. Pcit On Jurisdictional Issue As Well As On Merit. The Assessee Has Challenged The Exercise Of Revisionary Jurisdiction By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act On A Non-Existent Company, M/S. Sri Ram Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. On The Ground Of Being Void, Ab-Initio & Invalid In The Eyes Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Smt. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH “B”, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 PCIT, Kolkata-1 BBIGPLAS POLY PVT. LTD. 4th Floor, Room No. 22A, Vs. 23, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072. PAN: AADCK7909G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Smt. Puja Somani, CA Respondent by : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT. Date of Hearing :18.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement :.07.03.2022 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against…

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms indicated above

ITA 3031/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3031/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Spirit Infrapower & Dcit-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6Th Floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To M/S Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18Th Floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aalcs5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Dated 04.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP, & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3031/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Spirit Infrapower & DCIT-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6th floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to M/s Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18th floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AALCS5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhan…

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Pvt. Ltd (Successor to M/S Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms indicated above

ITA 3028/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3028/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Spirit Infrapower & Dcit-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6Th Floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To M/S Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18Th Floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aalcs5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhansali, Ld. Ar : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenges The Order Dated 04.12.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Ld

Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP, & Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Virtual Court Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3028/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Spirit Infrapower & DCIT-8(2)(2) R. No. 625, 6th floor, Multiventures Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to M/s Premier Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Finance & Trading Co. Road, Mumbai-400 020 बिधम/ Ltd.) Vs. 18th floor, A-Wint, Marathon Futurex, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AALCS5905J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Jay Bhan…

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &

Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…1/2014, “Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd ’’was not in existence as it was merged with BASF India Ltd and the assessment order was passed on nonexistent company/entity and is invalid. 6. We find The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 416 ITR 613 ( S C ), has held that assessment order passed on a nonexistent entity is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. The facts of the case, before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is in the name of amalgamating company and not the name of amalgamated company. Even the participa…

Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 697/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 697/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Lakshmi Machine Works The Acit, Ltd., V. Company Circle – Iv(2), (Amalgamated Company Of Lmw Coimbatore. Machinery Ltd W.E.F. 01.04.2012), S.R.K.V. Post, Perianaickenpalayam, Coimbatore – 641 020. Pan : Aaacl5244N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Company Circle Iv(2), Coimbatore Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) In Pursuance Of Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai In F.No.Drp/Che/05/2013, Directions Dated 28.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 16.01.2014. I.T.A. No.697/Chny/2014 2 2. At The Outset, Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised Vide Letter Dated 25.01.2016. He Referred The Following Additional Grounds:- (I) The Impugned Order, U/S.143 R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.01.2014 On The Dissolved Company M/S. Rieter Lmw Machinery Limited, Is Opposed To Law & Ab Initio Void. (Ii) The Learned Drp, Ought To Have Quashed The Draft Order Of The Tpo, As The Company Stood Dissolved With Effect From 01.04.2012, As Per The Order Of The Hon’Ble High Court Of Madras Dated 26Th Day Of April 2013, A Copy Of Which Position Was Brought To The Notice Of The Drp, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Palanikumar, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(11)

…ted by ld.counsel for the assessee that even the provisions of section 292B of the Act does not help the Revenue and for this, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 416 ITR 613. The ld.counsel for the assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. Gitsons Engineering Co., (2015) 370 ITR 87 and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Micra India (P) Ltd., (2015) 231 Taxman 809 (Delhi). 8. Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR relied on section 292B of the Act…