Prime Securities Ltd. v. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

317 ITR 27High Court2009#8972 most cited

What is Prime Securities Ltd. v. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

A defective return of income, once the defects are rectified within the permitted time, becomes a valid return and relates back to the original date of filing.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Prime Securities Ltd v Varinder Mehta · 317 ITR 27 · defective return · curable defect · revised return · section 139(9) · relation back · original date of filing

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69Section 69C

Judgments citing Prime Securities Ltd. v. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Suresh Chand Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-47(1), New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4379/DEL/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2009-10 Suresh Chand Goel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O 9, Atta-Ur-Rehman Lane, Ward 47(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 054. Pan: Afipg7505H

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…reliance upon Section 292 B of the Act but buttress the point that the minor mistakes/ omissions in the assessment should not adversely effect of the interest of the revenue and as put reliance upon the case of Prime Securities Ltd. vs. Varinder Mehta (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom). (iii) It is a settled position of law that each assessment year is a separate and independent unit, and findings in one year does not operate as res judicata for another year. Reliance has been placed on Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) (SC). (iv) The burden to establish to the genuineness of transactions lies upon the assessee and…

Shri. Venkatesh Prasad, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Mysore

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

ITA 193/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Venkatesh Prasad, Vs. Ito, Balaji Niwas, 2Nd Main Road, Ward - 1(2), H. D. Kote – 571 114. Mysore. Pan : Acqph 3972 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Lokanath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri. S. Lokanath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…P filed against the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in [2021] TMI 622. The learned AR also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prime Securities Vs. ACIT reported in 317 ITR 27. 6. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has complied with the defect notice issued by the AO under section 139(9) of the Act by filing the return of income on 13.06.2017. Hence, the date of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 20.08.2018 is valid and within the time prescribed. The learned…

Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Sucessor of Star Sports India Pvt. Ltd.- (Ssipl), Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated above and Ground

ITA 657/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. A C I T (Successor Of Star Sports India -16(1) Pvt. Ltd.) Room No. 439, Star House, Urmi Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg M.K. Road, Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013 Pan – Aaacn1335Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 114/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) A C I T -16(1) M/S Star India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan (Successor Of Star Sports India M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Star House, Urmi Estate 95, Ganpantrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel (W) Mumbai 400013 Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr Advocate Revenue By: Shri Biswanath Das –Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. Assessee Has Filed Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Acit-16(1), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, SR AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das –CIT-DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IT 68 taxmann.com 46. With respect to his submission that the valid revised return of income curing any defects cannot be ignored, he relied upon the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in the case of prime securities Ltd versus Varinder Mehta (2009) 317 ITR 27 wherein the return verified by the company secretary was held to be not amounting to a mere irregularity but are defective return which can be cured. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT versus Haryana sheet glass Ltd 318 ITR 173 wherein the revised return was delayed and was also signed by the secr…

Harvinder Singh Girgla, Delhi vs. Ward-43(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvediharvinder Singh Girgla Vs. Ward – 43(3) J-8/59, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 027 Pan No. Aakpg 0139 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Kumar, Adv. Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.11.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

…are removed within 15 days or such extended time granted by AO, the original return upon removal of defects u/s 139(9) of the Act becomes a valid return. 13. I find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prime Securities Ltd vs. Varinder Mehta (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) has held that once the defects in the return filed u/s 139(1) are removed within the time permitted by the Department, the same would relate back to the original date of filing of the return. 14. In the present facts, once the defects in the original return of income have been removed, then seen in the light of the ratio of Hon’ble Bombay H…

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

…ct, which could be rectified. Reference was made to another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595. 44. Bombay High Court in Prime Securities Ltd. v. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom.) has observed that Section 292B of the Act makes it clear that a return of income shall not be treated as invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission .if the return of income is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act The return of income, if not signed by the authomed sign…

Rite Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5849/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rite Developers, Dcit-13(3)(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, S.S. House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Csl, Opp. Adarsh Petrol Pump, Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaccr 2173 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Andhale, DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…be served on or before 30.09.2017 but the same was served on 10.08.2018 by the AO which was time barred as per the Income Tax Act. The appellant has placed its reliance on the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prime Securities Ltd Vs Assistant CIT 2009 317 ITR 27 (Bom.) The contentions of the appellant are considered carefully. 4.2 I have gone through the details available on record it is found that the appellant had filed original return of income for AY 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs.1,55,73,780/-. The said return of income was declared as defective return by the CPC, Bangalore vide…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…ld be rectified. Reference was made to another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595. 44. Bombay High Court in Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) has observed that Section 292B of the Act makes it clear that a return of income shall not be treated as invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, ITA No. 805 /2005 Page 18 of 29 if the return of income…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…ld be rectified. Reference was made to another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595. 44. Bombay High Court in Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) has observed that Section 292B of the Act makes it clear that a return of income shall not be treated as invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, 2018:DHC:3632-DB ITA No. 805 /2005 Page 18 of 29 if the…

M/S Electronics & Controls Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 M/s. Electronics & Controls Power Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Systems Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, SPL-B, 168, 3rd Cross, 1st Stage, Circle-11(3), Peenya Indl. Estate, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560058. PAN : AAACE3200F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Gurunathan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 31.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.11.2017 O R D E R Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, JM : This appeal is preferred…

DCIT 22(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Sudhir Vasu Shetty, Mumbai

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

ITA 6967/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1075/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 M/S. Spectrum Coal & The Acit, Circle 1(3), बनाम/ Power Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly M/S. St-Cli Mumbai-400 020 Coal Washeries Ltd), Mch No. 6-3-1089/1/1, Flat No. 203, Pavani Avenue, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082 Andhra Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 9860J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Salil Kapoor अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Love Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 140

…ers have been dismissed on the ground that the appeal memo was not signed by the authorized officer of the petitioner- company. 2. This Court in the case of Prime Securities Limited v/s. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) and Commissioner of Customs v/s. Cannon Shipping Company Private Limited reported in 250 ITR 347 has held that signing of the appeal memo by a person not authorized is only an irregularity and the same can be rectified. Although, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has tried to distinguish the judgment of this Court in the case of Prime…

Spectrum Coal and Power Ltd ( Formerly M./S. St-Cli Coal Washeries Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1075/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1075/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 बनाम/ M/S. Spectrum Coal & The Acit, Circle 1(3), Power Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. (Formerly M/S. St-Cli Mumbai-400 020 Coal Washeries Ltd), Mch No. 6-3-1089/1/1, Flat No. 203, Pavani Avenue, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082 Andhra Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 9860J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Salil Kapoor ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :21.01.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :29 .01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2010 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2002-03. 2 2. The First Grievance Of The Assessee In Its Appeal Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating The Reason Furnished By The Appellant For Signing The Appeal Memo By The Director Are Genuine & Bonafide. He Further Contended That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal On The Basis Of Technical Objections Raised Rather Than Deciding The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 140

…ders have been dismissed on the ground that the appeal memo was not signed by the authorized officer of the petitioner- company. 2. This Court in the case of Prime Securities Limited v/s. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) and Commissioner of Customs v/s. Cannon Shipping Company Private Limited reported in 250 ITR 347 has held that signing of the appeal memo by a person not authorized is only an irregularity and the same can be rectified. Although, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has tried to distinguish the judgment of this Court in the case of Prime…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…could be rectified. Reference was made to another decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595. 44. Bombay High Court in Prime Securities Ltd. Vs. Varinder Mehta, Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2009) 317 ITR 27 (Bom) has observed that Section 292B of the Act makes it clear that a return of income shall not be treated as invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, if 2012:DHC:871-DB ITA Nos. 7/2006 + connected matters Page 29 of 32 the return of income is…