PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

ACIT Circle-7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (Successor in Interest to Piramal International Pvt Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2338/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Piramal Enterprises Tax, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. Ltd. 128A, 1 St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Successor In Interest To M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Piramal International Pvt. फनाभ/ Ltd. 10, Piramal Tower, G.K. Vs. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcp6125D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Mansi Padhiyar, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 09.04.2021

…med by a non-jurisdictional AO cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. With regard to decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we find that all those decisions were already considered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 and in any case, the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court would bind us as it becomes the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution. The relevant operative portion of the facts as well as the finding given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. are as under:- ―10. On 11 March 2016, a draft assessment order was pass…

M/S.Moraj Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

…the amalgamation with the assessee company, which was duly approved by honourable Bombay High Court. He submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 107 Taxmann.com 375. He submitted that it was clearly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that assessment pursuant to notice on non-existent companies is a nullity. The learned counsel of the assessee further submitted that assessee has duly provided all the necessary details about the shareholders. The financials, the balance sheet the profit and loss account the…

Basf India Ltd ( Basf Coatings India P.Ld Now Amalgamated With Basf India Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Shri N.K. Pradhan (Am) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Basf India Limited (Basf The Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax- Coatings India Pvt. Ltd., 6(1), (Now Amalgamated With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Ltd.), Vs. M.K. Marg, Vibgyor Towers, Unit No. 101, Mumbai 1St Floor, G Block, C-62, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan : Aabcb2364G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Basf India Ltd. (Into Which The Dy. Cit - 6(1), Basf Polyureth India Ltd. Is Aayakar Bhavan, Amalgamated), M.K. Karve Road, Vibgyor Towers, Unit No. 101, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 1St Floor, G Block, C-62, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan : Aaccb5918E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Heena Doshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/10/2020

…r, she submitted, mentioning the name of amalgamating company afterwards in the assessment orders would not validate them. She submitted, under identical facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) has held the assessment orders passed in the name of amalgamated company to be invalid. 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue raised in the additional ground being a purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter and considering the fact that the issue can be decided on t…

Nandlal L. Kodnaney, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Vikas Awasthy

…issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, i.e., within the prescribed time, is not valid, admits of no two views in view of the decisions by the Apex Court, as in CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal [2019] 417 ITR 325 (SC); CIT (Pr.) v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); CIT (Asst.) v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC). The proposition afore-noted, however, is not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case, and for more than one reason. The assessments dated 31.3.1999, in framing which the notices u/s. 143(2) of the Act are, as claimed, issued and served belatedly, obtain no longer. T…

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodsiemens Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor In Interest To Siemens Power Income Tax- 8(2)(1), Engineering Private Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, 130, Pandurang Budhkar Vs. Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 018

…13 4 Siemens Limited Vs. DCIT-8(2)(1) henceforth validity of the same could not be challenged by it. Rebutting the said claim of the revenue, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC), had observed, that when the very basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity had ceased to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation, the participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. According…

Atos India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

…er dated 21/12/2012. The law is now very well settled that assessment framed on an non-existent entity deserves to be declared as void ab initio by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 wherein it was held that where during pendency of assessment proceedings, assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, the assessment order passed subsequently in the name of said non- existent entity, would be without jurisdiction and was to be set aside. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the…