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.

Rangsons Schuster Technologies Private Limited, Mandya vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)& Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1490/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 195BSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Plot No.9, Hebbal II Nd Phase VIADB Circle – 1(1) and TPS, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, BelagolaHobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. PAN : AAFCR 4493 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.202…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Raniben Khimji Patel, Legal Heir of Shri Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1742/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Raniben Khimji Patel, Legal Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Heir Of Shri Karamshi Patel, 7(3), Room No. 655, Floor 602, 6Th Floor Petit Tower, 6Th, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. August Kranti Marg, Kemps Road, Mumbai – 400 020, Corner, Mumbai 400 036, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadpp8816G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Komal Dedhia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 159Section 292BSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assistant Commissioner of v/s. Raniben Khimji Patel, Legal Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Heir of Shri Karamshi Patel, 7(3), Room No. 655, Floor 602, 6th Floor Petit Tower, 6th, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. August Kranti Marg, Kemps Road, Mumbai – 400 020, Corner, Mumbai 400 036, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPP8816G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी For Assessee : Ms. Komal Dedhia, AR For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, (Sr. AR)…

Sfdc Ireland Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax- 3(1)(1) Intl Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1475/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1475/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 SFDC Ireland Limited Dy. Commissioner of C/o. MNK and Associates Income Tax-3(1)(1), Company Secretaries, Vs. International Tax, G-41, Ground Floor, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi Civic Centre, Minto Road, PAN: ABLCS0234R New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ravi Sharma, CA & Sh. Harmeet Singh, CA Respondent by Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date of Prono…

Varam Capital Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1222/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.V.Muthuabhirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1222/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Varam Capital Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of No.3726, No.41, 6th Avenue, Vs. Income Tax, Q Block, Anna Nagar, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai – 600 040. Chennai. [PAN: AABCK4258L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T.V.Muthuabhirami, A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technoligies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…has been mentioned, therefore, the assessment order passed in the PAN of the non-\existent entity is bad in law. He relied on the following decisions to the proposition that the order passed on a non existing entity is bad in law: a) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [416 ITR 613 (SC)] b. Kuber India Systems Ltd. [168 taxmann.com 200 (Bom)] C. Alok Knit Exports Ltd. [446 ITR 748 (Bom)] d. Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. [173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune)] 13. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of Rs.3,58,47,391/- wh…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1663/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…abad informing of the merger. Since the Assessing Officer has passed the order on a non-existing entity, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA No.1657/PUN/2024 & Ors PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 413 ITR 613 (SC) and various other decisions, it was argued that such an order passed on a non-existing entity is invalid in the eyes of law. 6. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was argued that all the required compliance for getting approval for availing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act was made and all the relevant documents were also sub…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1661/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak andFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…abad informing of the merger. Since the Assessing Officer has passed the order on a non-existing entity, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA No.1657/PUN/2024 & Ors PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 413 ITR 613 (SC) and various other decisions, it was argued that such an order passed on a non-existing entity is invalid in the eyes of law. 6. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was argued that all the required compliance for getting approval for availing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act was made and all the relevant documents were also sub…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technologies Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

…has been mentioned, therefore, the assessment order passed in the PAN of the non-\existent entity is bad in law. He relied on the following decisions to the proposition that the order passed on a non existing entity is bad in law: a) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [416 ITR 613 (SC)] b. Kuber India Systems Ltd. [168 taxmann.com 200 (Bom)] C. Alok Knit Exports Ltd. [446 ITR 748 (Bom)] d. Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd. [173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune)] 13. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of Rs.3,58,47,391/- wh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd., Mauritius

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3275/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Dy. Cit, Circle-2(1)(2) (Intl. Tax.) M/S. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) New Delhi Ltd. (Erstwhile Black Lion Ltd.) C/O. Axis Fiduciary Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, The Axis, 26 Cybercity Ebene 722 201, Mauritius

For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(2) (Intl. Tax.) M/s. Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) New Delhi Ltd. (erstwhile Black Lion Ltd.) C/o. Axis Fiduciary Ltd. Vs. 2nd Floor, The Axis, 26 Cybercity Ebene 722 201, Mauritius PAN/GIR No. AAECK 8302 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Harsh Kapadia (Virtually Appellant by Present) & Narsingh Nahta Respondent by : Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP: This is an appeal by the Revenue agai…

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7430/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…is was a case, in which a substantial question of law arose, having 12 ITA Nos.7430/Del/2019 & 3618 to 3620/Del/2018 regard to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). 2.1 Insofar as the first issue is concerned, both learned judges were of the view, that the Tribunal had correctly entertained the additional ground raised before it which concerned facets involving jurisdiction. This is apparent from a perusal of paragraph 18 and 22 of the order dated 18.05.2021. 3. It is in these circumstances that the…

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3620/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…is was a case, in which a substantial question of law arose, having 12 ITA Nos.7430/Del/2019 & 3618 to 3620/Del/2018 regard to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). 2.1 Insofar as the first issue is concerned, both learned judges were of the view, that the Tribunal had correctly entertained the additional ground raised before it which concerned facets involving jurisdiction. This is apparent from a perusal of paragraph 18 and 22 of the order dated 18.05.2021. 3. It is in these circumstances that the…

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3619/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 बनाम Btl Industries Ltd., Dcit, (Merged With & Now Known As Vs. Central Circle-Ii, M/S Btl Holding Co. Ltd.), Faridabad, C/O Srs Mall, Third Floor, Haryana. Sector-12, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No.Aaccb0573C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent &

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…e jurisdiction of the AO in having the assessment order framed against a company, which was not in existence. (ii) Second, whether this was a case, in which a substantial question of law arose, having Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). 2.1 Insofar as the first issue is concerned, both learned judges were of the view, that the Tribunal had correctly entertained the additional ground raised before it which concerned facets involving jurisdiction. This is apparent from a perusal of paragraph 18 and 22 of the order dated 18.05.2021. 3. It is in these circumstances that the m…

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3618/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

…h was not in existence. (ii) Second, whether this was a case, in which a substantial question of law arose, having 12 regard to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). 2.1 Insofar as the first issue is concerned, both learned judges were of the view, that the Tribunal had correctly entertained the additional ground raised before it which concerned facets involving jurisdiction. This is apparent from a perusal of paragraph 18 and 22 of the order dated 18.05.2021. 3. It is in these circumstances that the…

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7 Pune, Pune vs. Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 341/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…Since in the present case the assessee had filed the letter informing the fact of amalgamation he held that the claim of the assessee is not acceptable. 7. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC) is concerned, he noted that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the assessee. In that case the issuance of jurisdiction notice u/s 143(2) to the amalgamating company SPIL was undertaken on 26.09.2013 subsequent to the approval granted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the Scheme of amalgamation on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.20…

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corpn. Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2875/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…Since in the present case the assessee had filed the letter informing the fact of amalgamation he held that the claim of the assessee is not acceptable. 7. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC) is concerned, he noted that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the assessee. In that case the issuance of jurisdiction notice u/s 143(2) to the amalgamating company SPIL was undertaken on 26.09.2013 subsequent to the approval granted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for the Scheme of amalgamation on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.20…

Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd (Successor Kumar Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd), Pune vs. DCIT Circle 14, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

…Since in the present case the assessee had filed the letter informing the fact of amalgamation he held that the claim of the assessee is not acceptable. 7. So far as the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC) is concerned, he noted that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the assessee. In that case the issuance of jurisdiction notice u/s 143(2) to the amalgamating company SPIL was undertaken on 26.09.2013 subsequent to the approval granted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for the Scheme of amalgamation on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.20…

Mahendra Singh Jain, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3848/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2012-13 Mahendra Singh Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ward 1(4), Ghaziabad Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad (Pan: Afhpj7049A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.2.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Patnan For Ay 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:- 1. Because, The Order Of The Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case. 2. Because, The Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Impugned Proceeding & Assessment Order Whereby All The Notices U/S. 142(1)/144 & Impugned Order Were Issued In The Name Of Deceased Person Against The Provisions Of Section 159 Of The Act Hence, The Order Is Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 159

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt. Year : 2012-13 MAHENDRA SINGH JAIN, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CH. NO. 206-207, ANSAL SATYAM, WARD 1(4), GHAZIABAD RDC, RAJNAGAR, GHAZIABAD (PAN: AFHPJ7049A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Shri Govil Aggarwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 17.2.2025 passed by the Addl./JCIT(A), P…

Shafi Musaliar Sainalabdeen Musaliar, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 231/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…ppeal before this tribunal. at the time of hearing the learned AR submitted that the assessment framed in the name of a deceased person is null and void, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC), wherein it was held that an assessment made on a non-existent person is invalid in law as it is against the person who does not exist in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the authority below. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the present case…

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Raniben Khimji Patel, Legal Heir of Shri Khimji Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue are accordingly dismissedand order of Ld

ITA 1743/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit-Cc-7(3) Vs. Ranibenkhimji Patel R. No. 655, (Legal Heir Of Shri 6Thfloor,Aayakar Bhavan, Khimjikaramshi M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 Patel), 020 602, 6Th Floor, Petit Tower, August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aadpp8816G (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT-CC-7(3) Vs. RanibenKhimji Patel R. No. 655, (Legal Heir of Shri 6thfloor,Aayakar Bhavan, KhimjiKaramshi M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 Patel), 020 602, 6th floor, Petit Tower, August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Mumbai-400 026 PAN/GIR No. AADPP8816G (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ld. AR Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM: This appeal by reve…

Softwareone India Pvt. Ltd. (As Successor of Comparex India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4287/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S. Softwareone India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Acit, (As Successor Of Comparex India Circle-22(2), Pvt. Ltd ), Delhi 4Th Floor, Kaveri Tower-1, 211, Sector-D, Pocket-6, Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaocs6228H Assessee By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv Shri Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri S. K. Jadav, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jadav, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…the hands of the non-existent entity would become fatal to the entire assessment proceedings per se or not. This issue is no longer res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC), wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court after considering all the relevant decisions on the subject had held as under:- “33 In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only…