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 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.

DCIT Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, we confirm the order of the learned CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer

ITA 3882/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Idbi Bank Ltd. Dcit Cirlce-3(4), 22Nd Floor Idbi Tower, R.No.559, 5Th Floor, Wtc Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 28/Mum/2024 (Arising In Ita No.3882/Mum/2023 For A.Y.2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM IDBI Bank Ltd. DCIT Cirlce-3(4), 22nd Floor IDBI Tower, R.NO.559, 5th Floor, WTC Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400005 (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 28/MUM/2024 (Arising in ITA No.3882/Mum/2023 for A.Y.2006-07) IDBI Bank Ltd. DCIT Cirlce-3(4), 22nd Floor IDBI Tower, R.NO.559, 5th Floor, WTC Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Cuffe Parade, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400005 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCI8842G Assessee by : Shri C. Naresh, AR Revenue by…

Bairajben Chavda L/H of Late Bhurabhai Gandabhai Chavada, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…rt in case of Pravinchandra A. Shah 154 taxmann.com 616 (Gujarat) and Chandresh Bhai vs. ITO 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat). The ld. A.R. also relied upon the following decisions:- -Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman 515/416 ITR 613(SC); -Krishnaawatar Kabra v. ITO [2022] 140 taxmann.com 423 (Gujarat); -Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233/260 Taxman 412/414 ITR 286 (Delhi); - Sandeep Chopra v. Pr. CIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 225/292 Taxman 269 (Jharkhand); - Savita Kapila v. Asstt. CIT [2020] 118 taxmnann.com 46/273 Taxman 148/426 ITR 502 (Delhi); I.T.A N…

Chandravadan Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 674/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 674/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chandravadan Desai Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Sb Tower, 3Rd Floor Vs Kolkata 37, Shakespeare Sarani Circus Avenue S.O. Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabdh5812Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short ‘Ld. First Appellate Authority’) Dt. 09/05/2023 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’), Dt. 30/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed By Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Inspite Of Being Aware That Chandravadan Desai Huf Had Been Partitioned & Had Ceased To Exist Upon Its Partition On The 26Th Day Of March 2014 & The Impugned Penalty Order Passed By The Ao In The Name Of Chandravadan Desai Huf, A Non-Existent Person Was Invalid & Therefore The Order Deserves To Be Cancelled.

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…in challenge before us. The first legal ground raised by the assessee is that the order passed in the name of the non-existent person is void ab initio and bad in law. Placing reliance on the judgment of the PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC), it is claimed before us that the ld. Assessing Officer was very much aware that the assessee HUF has dissolved on 26/03/2014 and, therefore, any further proceedings could not have been carried out in the name of the non- existent entity. We observe that notice u/s 274 of the Act has been issued on 30/12/2016 leveling the charge against the…

ACIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M B Patil Construction Limited, Mumbai

ITA 98/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

…of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Wind Energy Ltd vs. Add.CIT reported in (2023) 454 ITR 162 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (2019) 416 ITR 613 and PCIT vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. reported in 287 taxmann 566. He also relied upon the Co- ordinate Bench decision of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd in ITA Nos. 2561/Mum/2021 & 2560/Mum/2021 and others order dated 19/10/2022, wherein the Tribunal has discussed both the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour…

M/S M.B.Patil Constructions Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 303/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

…of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Wind Energy Ltd vs. Add.CIT reported in (2023) 454 ITR 162 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (2019) 416 ITR 613 and PCIT vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. reported in 287 taxmann 566. He also relied upon the Co- ordinate Bench decision of ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd in ITA Nos. 2561/Mum/2021 & 2560/Mum/2021 and others order dated 19/10/2022, wherein the Tribunal has discussed both the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour…

Late Sh. Birdi Chand Through Legal Heir Mukesh Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.502/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 Late Sh. Birdi Chand cuke ITO, Through Legal Heir Mukesh Sharma Vs. Ward-7(2), Jaipur. 07, Mathurawala, Beelwa Sanganer, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AYHPC4265G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktL…

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Successor to Boeing International Corporation India Private Limited), New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 828/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 139(1)

…e draft assessment order has been passed in the name of a non-existent entity quashed the assessment order. Further, in support of his contention, learned counsel strongly relied upon the following decisions: i) PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) – 416 ITR 613 (SC); ii) CIT vs. Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No.115/2019 judgment dated 02.02.2023 (Delhi High Court). 5. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee did inform the fact of amalgamation/merger of the erstwhile company with the successor company to the Assessing Officer. However, he submitted,…

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…g the assessment, the approvals granted by the specified authority had referred to the assessee as a LLP. In fact, the assessee therein also did not have any confusion in its mind with respect to the name. In a later judgment in PCIT v Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.416 ITR 613/265 taxman 515, the Hon`ble Apex Court has considered this judgment in the context of an assessment order being made on an amalgamating company after its amalgamation and found the facts in that case to be peculiar and hence, distinguishable (see paragraph 27 at pages 631 to 633 of the Report). The facts and issues arising in that case has no res…

Jagdamba Ispat Private Limited, Patna vs. ITO, 2(1), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna Vs Pan: Aaacj 5860 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 391Section 68Section 69A

…l settled law that on amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law. The above proposition of the assessee gets fortified by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC) pronounced on 05.07.2019. 7. The ld. AR further submitted that bench may consider the submission of the assessee and delete the addition made by the AO in the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the decision rendered by the lower authorities on this issue. 9. We after hearing the rival submiss…

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 159/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Eko Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle – 2(3), Vs 54, Jawaharlal Nehru Road Kolkata Rabindra Sadan Kolkata - 700071 [PAN: AAACE6366J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/R Revenue by : Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncemen…

Solvent Real Estate Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata

ITA 994/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 994/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Solvent Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata (PAN: AAMCS 8286 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") I.T.A. No. 879/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata Vs. Solvent Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAMCS 8286 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 27.12.2023 Date of Heari…

ITO, Ward - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Solvent Real Estate Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 879/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 994/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Solvent Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata (PAN: AAMCS 8286 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") I.T.A. No. 879/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata Vs. Solvent Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAMCS 8286 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 27.12.2023 Date of Heari…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot vs. Smt. Kanchan Kiran Sorathiya, Anjar-Kutch

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 39/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 159(2)(b)Section 159(3)Section 292BSection 69B

…t the Revenue. The Ld. AR further submitted that the following decisions wherein assessment order in the name of deceased person/non-existent person is held to be invalid and non-curable under Section 292B of the Act. 1) PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 107 Taxmann.com 375 2) Spice Infotainment Limited vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR (Delhi HC) 500 3) T. Pilani S-463-HC-2019 (Madras) 4) Dimension Apparels Pvt. Ltd. TS-610-HC-2014 (Delhi) 5) Norton Motors TS-10-HC-2004 (P&H) 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is to note that the Ld. DR submitted that menti…

Confirm Realbuild(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1036/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1036/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Confirm Realbuild Pvt. Ltd.(Successor To Lookline Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Sanjukta Vanijya Pvt. Ltd).………………………..........................……....Appellant 63, Radha Bazar Street, 3Rd Floor, Room No.T/5, Kolkata-700001. [Pan: Aamcs7960G] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata........…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Apart From Contesting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Loss Claimed Of Rs.75,61,666/- Treating The Share Transaction Entered By The Assessee

Section 143(2)Section 250

…dated 01.07.2019 received in the office of the Assessing Officer vide acknowledgement/seal and signature dated 13.08.2019. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 (SC). 4. The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid legal position and has simply relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. In view of the above, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer on a non-existent company is not sustainable and…

DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai vs. Avaada Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2089/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2

…On perusal of above, it is clear that the CIT(A) has held the Assessment Order to be invalid after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: 416 ITR 613 (SC) as well as the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-3(3), Central Range-3, Mumbai: ITA No. 697 & 698/Mum/2022, dated 19/10/2022. We have perused of the aforesaid judicial precedents and are of th…

Avaada Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 1754/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2

…On perusal of above, it is clear that the CIT(A) has held the Assessment Order to be invalid after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Pr. CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.: 416 ITR 613 (SC) as well as the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-3(3), Central Range-3, Mumbai: ITA No. 697 & 698/Mum/2022, dated 19/10/2022. We have perused of the aforesaid judicial precedents and are of th…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastruture (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1367/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…rm at the relevant point of time of passing the assessment orders in these assessment years. 7.1 In this regard, 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 this case are that Suzuki Motors Corporation, and Maruti Suzuki India limited (in short MSIL) constituted a joint venture with shareholding of 70% and 30%. Such joint venture was incorporated as Suzuki Motor India Ltd. Subsequently w.e.f. 8.6.2005 its name was changed to SPIL. On 28.11.2012 SPIL has filed its return of income. Upto…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1363/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…rm at the relevant point of time of passing the assessment orders in these assessment years. 7.1 In this regard, 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 this case are that Suzuki Motors Corporation, and Maruti Suzuki India limited (in short MSIL) constituted a joint venture with shareholding of 70% and 30%. Such joint venture was incorporated as Suzuki Motor India Ltd. Subsequently w.e.f. 8.6.2005 its name was changed to SPIL. On 28.11.2012 SPIL has filed its return of income. Upto…

Trishul Buildtech Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1362/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…rm at the relevant point of time of passing the assessment orders in these assessment years. 7.1 In this regard, 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 this case are that Suzuki Motors Corporation, and Maruti Suzuki India limited (in short MSIL) constituted a joint venture with shareholding of 70% and 30%. Such joint venture was incorporated as Suzuki Motor India Ltd. Subsequently w.e.f. 8.6.2005 its name was changed to SPIL. On 28.11.2012 SPIL has filed its return of income. Upto…

Jainam Exports, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(7), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 566/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Jainam Exports, I.T.O., 201, Adinath Apartment, Jadakhadi, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003, Surat. Gujarat. Pan No. Aadfj 1363 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH (SMC), SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrid hearing) Jainam Exports, I.T.O., 201, Adinath Apartment, Jadakhadi, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003, Surat. Gujarat. PAN No. AADFJ 1363 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Ms. Chaitali Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 16/08/2023 Date of hearing 26/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 26/10/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is di…