Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT

438 ITR 317High Court2021#10655 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92CASection 10(3) (Black Money Act)Section 115CSection 132(1)Section 144B(1)Section 144C(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 144b(1)undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 144c(15)(b)section 245c(1)section 144c(2)section 23(4)section 6(1)section 144c(15)section 142(3)section 245d(4)section 4(1)section 193

Judgments citing Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 902/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…2025 cannot be allowed to stand and has to\nbe quashed and set aside.\n5. In the view that we take, we are supported by a decision of a Division Bench of\nthis court in the case of SHL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF\nINCOME-TAX AND OTHERS, [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bom). The relevant portion of this\ndecision reads thus :-\n\"27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view\nthat the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure under\nSection 144C(1) is not a merely procedural or inadvertent error, but a breach of a\nmandatory provision. We are als…

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 901/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…2025 cannot be allowed to stand and has to\nbe quashed and set aside.\n5. In the view that we take, we are supported by a decision of a Division Bench of\nthis court in the case of SHL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF\nINCOME-TAX AND OTHERS, [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bom). The relevant portion of this\ndecision reads thus :-\n\"27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view\nthat the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure under\nSection 144C(1) is not a merely procedural or inadvertent error, but a breach of a\nmandatory provision. We are als…

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 900/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…rch 2025 cannot be allowed to stand and has to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the view that we take, we are supported by a decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of SHL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS, [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bom). The relevant portion of this decision reads thus :- "27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure under Section 144C(1) is not a merely procedural or inadvertent error, but a breach of a mandatory provision. We are also not…

DAMANDEEP KAUR,MOHALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-2), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 899/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…5 cannot be allowed to stand and has to\nbe quashed and set aside.\n\n5.\nIn the view that we take, we are supported by a decision of a Division Bench of\nthis court in the case of SHL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF\nINCOME-TAX AND OTHERS, [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bom). The relevant portion of this\ndecision reads thus :-\n\n\"27. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view\nthat the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure under\nSection 144C(1) is not a merely procedural or inadvertent error, but a breach of a\nmandatory provision. We are a…

BEAUTY ETOILE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4073/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(5)Section 234Section 234ASection 270ASection 948

…eferring to provisions of Section 144C(13), the impugned assessment order is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 6.1. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of S.H.L. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bom), wherein it was held that failure on part of Assessing Officer to follow procedure u/s.144C is not a mere procedural or inadvertent error but a breach of mandatory provision which is incurable. According to the Hon'ble Court, the final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer stands vitiated on account of lack of jurisdiction, since…

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta
Section 40

…CIT v Lionbridge Technologies (P) Ltd 100 Taxmann.com 413 (Bombay) 8. Gigabyte Technology (India) (P) Ltd v. CIT (121 taxmann.com 301) (Bombay) 9. Jazzy Creation Pvt Ltd v ITO (ITA No 4560/Mum/2014, order dated 4 January 2016) 10. SHL (India) (P) Ltd v. DCIT (438 ITR 317) (Bom) 11. International Air Transport v. DCIT (290 CTR 46) (Bom) 12. Apache Footware India Private Limited v. ACIT (ITA- TP No 385/Hyd/2021, dated 11 January 2023) (Hyd Tribunal).” The ld. Counsel has also laid emphasis on the decision of SHL (India) (P) ltd. Vs. DCIT (2021) 128 taxmann.com 426 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Co…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…UF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way of the validity of assessment proceedings, etc. 34 The ld. CIT-DR on the other h…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…UF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way of the validity of assessment proceedings, etc. 34 The ld. CIT-DR on the other h…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…UF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way of the validity of assessment proceedings, etc. 34 The ld. CIT-DR on the other h…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…UF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way of the validity of assessment proceedings, etc. 34 The ld. CIT-DR on the other h…

Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT (438 ITR 317) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax