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 366,470 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 148Section 143(3)Section 147Section 292BSection 143(2)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 170transferor companytransferee companysection 2(1a)section 2(31)section 159section 39amalgamationsection 292bscheme of arrangementsection 292legal representative

Judgments citing PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

World Resorts Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward (4)(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1540/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 68

…IT(A) did not quash the assessment order, but Page 4 of 5 adjudicated on the issue of reopening as well as on the merits of the case. 8. The ld. AR further referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 416 ITR 613, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Culver Max Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, 168 taxmann.com 200. 9. The ld. DR vehemently submitted that the assessee though amalgamated, but the ld. AO in the body of the order has clearly recorded that there is an amalgamation of this company…

Iyogi Private Limited, Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3254/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 IYOGI PRIVATE LIMITED, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 178, Golf Links, Ward-12(4), New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AACCI5597B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anil Choudhary, CA Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.01.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appea…

ACIT, Delhi vs. Cardio Technovention, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1532/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT, Vs. Cardio Technovention, Delhi 105, First Floor, Anupam Plaza-II, Main Road, Ghazipur PAN: AAFFC4399B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pranshu G., CA Sh. Aditya Gupta, Adv. Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.01.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in shor…

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Liquidhub India Private Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.2753/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India s Income Tax Limited(Successor to Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase III, MIDC SEZ, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. PAN: AAACL8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Sudin Sabnis…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6159/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

…by the [Assessing] Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.” 8. In the course of arguments, he contended that the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC), to justify the validity of the assessment, contending that the addition of the income of the predecessor in the hands of the successor is legally sustainable. However, he respectfully distinguished the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and invited our attention to the following paragraphs thereof, which are reproduced hereunder:— “6.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects Inernational Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6114/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

…by the [Assessing] Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.” 8. In the course of arguments, he contended that the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC), to justify the validity of the assessment, contending that the addition of the income of the predecessor in the hands of the successor is legally sustainable. However, he respectfully distinguished the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and invited our attention to the following paragraphs thereof, which are reproduced hereunder:— “6.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Projects International Limited, Gujarat

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

ITA 6113/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

…by the [Assessing] Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.” 8. In the course of arguments, he contended that the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC), to justify the validity of the assessment, contending that the addition of the income of the predecessor in the hands of the successor is legally sustainable. However, he respectfully distinguished the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and invited our attention to the following paragraphs thereof, which are reproduced hereunder:— “6.…

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5961/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

…by the [Assessing] Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.” 8. In the course of arguments, he contended that the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC), to justify the validity of the assessment, contending that the addition of the income of the predecessor in the hands of the successor is legally sustainable. However, he respectfully distinguished the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and invited our attention to the following paragraphs thereof, which are reproduced hereunder:— “6.…

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5960/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

…by the [Assessing] Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.” 8. In the course of arguments, he contended that the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC), to justify the validity of the assessment, contending that the addition of the income of the predecessor in the hands of the successor is legally sustainable. However, he respectfully distinguished the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and invited our attention to the following paragraphs thereof, which are reproduced hereunder:— “6.…

Kalpataru Projects International Ltd, Gujarat vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 147Section 250Section 90

…by the [Assessing] Officer as to his liability to be treated as such.” 8. In the course of arguments, he contended that the revenue has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC), to justify the validity of the assessment, contending that the addition of the income of the predecessor in the hands of the successor is legally sustainable. However, he respectfully distinguished the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and invited our attention to the following paragraphs thereof, which are reproduced hereunder:— “6.…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

…spect of grounds referred in paragraphs 4 to 7 hereinabove following the principles of consistency laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT, 1992 (1) SCC 659, paras 16 & 17 and Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC), para 34 [which decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. [2024] 461 ITR 476 (Del), [SLP of Department against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in (2024) 461 ITR 481 (SC)] consistently followed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.4 We have considered the submissions made, gone thr…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

…spect of grounds referred in paragraphs 4 to 7 hereinabove following the principles of consistency laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT, 1992 (1) SCC 659, paras 16 & 17 and Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC), para 34 [which decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. [2024] 461 ITR 476 (Del), [SLP of Department against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in (2024) 461 ITR 481 (SC)] consistently followed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.4 We have considered the submissions made, gone thr…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

…spect of grounds referred in paragraphs 4 to 7 hereinabove following the principles of consistency laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT, 1992 (1) SCC 659, paras 16 & 17 and Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC), para 34 [which decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. [2024] 461 ITR 476 (Del), [SLP of Department against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in (2024) 461 ITR 481 (SC)] consistently followed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.4 We have considered the submissions made, gone thr…

D.C.I.T Cir - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eureka Forbs Ltd, Kolkata

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

…spect of grounds referred in paragraphs 4 to 7 hereinabove following the principles of consistency laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT, 1992 (1) SCC 659, paras 16 & 17 and Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC), para 34 [which decision has been followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. [2024] 461 ITR 476 (Del), [SLP of Department against which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in (2024) 461 ITR 481 (SC)] consistently followed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 8.4 We have considered the submissions made, gone thr…

Shriram Finance Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

ITA 2043/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2043/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shriram Finance Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of [Since Shriram City Union Finance Income Tax – 3, Limited Amalgamated With Shriram Chennai. Transport Finance Co. Limited & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Limited], Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4

…. No.2043/Chny/25 facts on hand. Further, he drew our attention to para 11 & 12 of the said judgement and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the SLP by referring to the judgement in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in (2020) 18 SCC 331. He submits by placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamala Muthiah (supra) to quash the notice dated 28.03.2025 issued by the ld. PCIT as void ab initio. 4. The ld. DR Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT submits that the assessee is a public limited NBFC, ROI was selected under CASS for the AY 2022-23 and the proceedings…

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1775/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathanand

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 127Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER airat 3rttet PITA No.1774 & 1775/KOL/2025 (freor af / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Vs | Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata 4, Block 1 Unit 7(O), Chowringhee Lane, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 PAN No. :AAHCM 4897 K (ardrereff /Appellant) . (aeaeff / Respondent) farati<ct #i ait & /Assessee by Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate TWared #7 3X F /Revenue by : | Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR Yetars At ART / Date of Hearing : | 30/12/20…

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1774 & 1775/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Vs Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata 4, Block 1 Unit 7(O), Chowringhee Lane, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 Pan No. :Aahcm 4897 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subrata Aich, Jcit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Kolkata-27, Both Dated 15.04.2025 For The Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Both Appeals Of The Revenue Are Filed Belatedly By 05 Days Each. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavit In Both The Appeals Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Reasons Stated In The Affidavit, We Condone The Delay Of 05 Days Each In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue & Both The Appeals Are Admitted For Hearing. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Sr.Dr That The Assessee Being Energy Commodity Private Limited Was Involved In Sale Of Bogus Investments. It Was Submission That Consequently Reopening Had Been Done By Issuance Of Notice 148 Of The Act On 10/01/2024 & The Reasons Were Recorded & In The Assessee’S Paper Book At Pages 146 To 167 Which Reads As Follows:-

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1774 & 1775/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Vs Ishana Projects Private Limited, Kolkata 4, Block 1 Unit 7(O), Chowringhee Lane, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 PAN No. :AAHCM 4897 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 30/12/202…

Unique Rail Road Consultants Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1277/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…er the Hon'ble High Court order and therefore, the order passed by the A.O. in the name of non-existing entity cannot be upheld. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC). 5. The Ld. CIT(A), after taking note of relevant explanation of the assessee with regard to additions made towards ad hoc 6 Unique Rail Road Consultants Pvt. Ltd. disallowance of Travels and Tours Expenses, Vehicle Hire Charges, and disallowance of Site and Other Expenses, held that, the assessee has failed to furnish relevant details al…

Mishmi Takin Sportsgear Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6578/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 147Section 148

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mishmi Takin Sportsgear Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 322, Block-C, Delhi. Milennium Apartments, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-110085. PAN: AAJCM 3199 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Nishant Agrawal, CA & Shri Ajay Mittal, CA Department represented by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 6578/Del/ /2025 for assessment year 2019-20 ari…

Kalna Regulated Market Committee(Presently Purba Burdwan Zilla Regulated Market Committee), Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Burdwan

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1348/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1346 To 1348/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kalna Regulated Market Committee ………………………….……….……Appellant (Presently Purba Burdwan Zilla Regulated Market Committee), Poddar Commercial Complex (1St Floor), Purbasha Bus Stand, Alisha, Burdwan, Wb -713103. [Pan: Aaajk1202A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Burdwan..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subham Bera, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pankaj Pandey, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders All Dated 21.01.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018–19. Ita No.1346/Kol/2025 Is Pertaining To The Quantum Addition & Ita Nos.1347 & 1348/Kol/2025 Are Relaying To Levying Of Penalty U/S 271Aac(1) & 270A Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. 2. At The Outset, It Reveals That The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed After A Delay Of 84 Days & For The Said Delay, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petitions. We Find That The Reasons Cited In The Petition For

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

…doubt that Kalna Regulated Market Committee has been dissolved much earlier and it was in the knowledge of the lower authorities. Now coming to the judicial pronouncement the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd reported in [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC) has held that assessment/reassessment order was issued in the name of company which is ceased to exist due to amalgamation is void ab initio and this Enfotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, in [(2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del)] where it was held that an assessment made in the name of an amalgamating company after its cessation is invalid. G…