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.

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 613)

M/S. Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

ITA 946/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R

Section 10BSection 147Section 40

…He further held that such an order passed is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. 2.6. In support of his argument, he also relied on the decision of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd reported in 416 ITR 613. He also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Spice Infotainment Ltd in Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 by order dated 02/11/2017, wherein the appeals by the revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 475 of 2011 dated 03/08/2011 were dismissed. 2.7. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently…

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1146/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiemens Ltd (Successor Vs. Dcit, In Interest To Siemens Corporate Circle - Building Technologies 8(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,) Room No. 615, 6Th Birla Aurora, Level 20, Floor, Aayakar P.No. 1080, Ar. Annie Bhavan, Mk Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs0764L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…gy Pvt Ltd ‟ was not in existence as it was Siemens Ltd., Mumbai. merged with Siemens Ltd and the assessment order was passed on nonexistent company/entity and is invalid. 9. 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. In the present case…

Accenture Solutions P. Ltd (Asol)(As A Successor to Accenture Services Private Limited (Aspl) Which Has Merged Into Asol With An Effective Date of 1 December 2016, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 530/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271Section 92C

…, the same is required to be quashed. He further held that such an order passed is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 416 ITR 613 (SC) dated 25/07/2019. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 in CIT vs Spice Infotainment Ltd dated 02nd November 2017 wherein the appeals by the revenue against the decision of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 475 of 2011 dated 03rd August 2011 were dismissed. He further referred to s…

M/S. V3S Infratech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3499/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Padamapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…h the name of M/s. V3S Infratech Ltd. is also mentioned within the brackets, such an assessment order is bad in law. He further submitted that the case of assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd ( 2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) wherein the facts are identical. 4. Learned DR heavily relied on the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee merely because the name of M/s. YMC Buildmore Pvt. Ltd. is also mentioned in addition to the amalgamating company, M/s. V3S Infratech Ltd. Since the assessee understood the nature and part…

M/S. Gyanshankar Investment & Trading Co. P. Ltd.(Before Amalgamation M/S. Stellar Credit& E-Trading P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Gyanshankar The DCIT, Investment & Tradinv Co. Circle 7(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.124, (Before Amalgamation Aayakar Bhavan, M/s. Stellar Credit & E- Vs. New Marine Lines, Trading Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 2501, RNA Mirage, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 PAN: AABCG3362R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Salil Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.08.2021 Date of Pr…

Infor (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 198/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Dr.Sunil Moti Lala, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Srinivas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

…stage. This is primarily for the reason that we are dealing with Chapter-X of the Act in the nature of a “Special Provision” so as to determine Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the specified international transaction. Hon'ble apex court’s recent decision in (2019) 416 ITR 613, PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd (SC) holds that income tax proceedings are not hit by the ‘Principles of :- 11 -: ITA-TP No.198/Hyd/2021 Estoppel’. The fact also remains that the instant entity’s segmental details deserve to be verified as to whether it is providing software development services or not? We therefore restore this instant ground back…

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

…been framed in the name of the person who was not in existence at the relevant point of time. In this connection we would like to take a note of the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in 416 ITR 613. The facts in the case was that Suzuki Motors Corporation, and Maruti Suzuki India limited (in short MSIL) created a joint venture with shareholding of 70% and 30%. Such joint venture was incorporated as Suzuki Metal India Ltd. Subsequently w.e.f. 8th June 2005 its name was changed to SPIL. On 28th November 2012 SPIL has filed its return of incom…

M/S. Infosys Bpm Limited (Formerly Known As Infosys Bpo Limited, Successor to PAN Financial Shared Services India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2372/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Infosys Bpm Limited Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Infosys Bpo Limited, Special Range – 3, Successor To Pan Financial Shared Services Bengaluru. India Private Limited), 26/3, 26/4, 26/6, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaccp 4478 N Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.09.2019 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2008-09. 2. Grounds 2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard The Validity Of The Order Passed By The Ao On The Ground That The Assessee Ceased To Exist As On The Date On Which The Order Of The Assessment Was Passed On Merger With M/S. Infosys Bpm Ltd. & Consequently The Order Passed In The Name Of A Company Which Seized To Exist Was Invalid. These Grounds Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 391

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/s. Infosys BPM Limited Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (formerly known as Infosys BPO Limited, Special Range – 3, Successor to PAN Financial Shared Services Bengaluru. India Private Limited), 26/3, 26/4, 26/6, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bengaluru – 560 100. PAN : AACCP 4478 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 14.09.20…