Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT

247 CTR 500High Court2012#928 most cited

What is Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessment framed in the name of a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is invalid, even if the amalgamated company participated in the proceedings. Such a defect cannot be cured under section 292B of the Income-tax Act.

114

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Spice Infotainment Ltd. · CIT · 247 CTR 500 · HC · 2012 · assessment in name of dissolved company · invalid assessment · section 170 · section 292B · amalgamation · scheme of arrangement · resulting company · transferee company

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 144Section 142(1)Section 250Section 292BSection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 170section 39section 2(31)transferee companytransferor companydoctrine of mergerresulting companycost plus methodscheme of arrangementsection 292bamalgamationlegal representative

Judgments citing Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT

Dy.Comm of Income Tax -Central Circle- 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Upl Djai Power Ltd (Now Known As Beil Infrastructure Ltd, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the

ITA 1958/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(3) M/S. Upl Djai Power Ltd. Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, (Now Known As Beil Infrastructure Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Plot No. 9701-16, Cidc Estate, Ankleshwar, Gujarat-393 002

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…iding the issue whether the assessment order passed in the name of the non existing company is invalid or not. The ld.DR distinguished the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT 247 CTR 500 (Del) to the present case in hand and also relied on the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Chowgule Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT [2022] 142 taxmann.com 472 (Bom). The ld. DR vehemently opposed the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 6. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short), on the other hand, contende…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012) 68 DTR 112 (All) • ACIT v/s. Supreme Appar and Associates [(2009) 30 DTR (Mum) (Trib) 229] ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri M…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012) 68 DTR 112 (All) • ACIT v/s. Supreme Appar and Associates [(2009) 30 DTR (Mum) (Trib) 229] ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri M…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Bangalore vs. Sri Mathikere Ramaiah Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewellers v/s. CIT [(2012) 79 DTR (All) 241] • CITvs.Bihari Lal Agarwal [(2012) 346 ITR 67 (All)] [(2012) 68 DTR (All) 112 • Manish Prakash Gupta v/s. CIT [(2012) 68 DTR 112 (All) • ACIT v/s. Supreme Appar and Associates [(2009) 30 DTR (Mum) (Trib) 229] ITA Nos.542 to 544/Bang/2021 & CO Nos.17 to 19/Bang/2021 Sri M…

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek
Section 153ASection 68

…under section 292B of the Act. 9. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) has discussed various judicial precedence and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (1990) 53 Taxman 92 (SC); Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500; Sky Light Hospitality LLP (2018) 90 taxmann.com 413 (Delhi) and various other decision of Hon’ble High Court and finally he referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 413 ITR 613 and observed and held as under:- 5.28 The above decisions more or less settle the issue of error commi…

Biocon Biologics Limited (Formerly Known As Biocon Biologics India Limited) (Successor to Biocon Research Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 299/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Biocon Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Biologics India Limited) Bengaluru. Ground Floor, Tower 3, Semicon Park, Hosur Road, Electronics City S.O. Bangalore South – 560 100. Pan : Aagcb7796M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee, Namely, Biocon Biologics Limited [Successor. To Biocon Research Limited With Appointed Date 01.04.2019] Is Engaged In The Carrying Out Research & Development ("R & D") Of Drugs & Drug Delivery Systems. For The Relevant Assessment Year ("Ay") 2017-18, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2017, Declaring `Nil’ Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The I.T.Act & Book Losses As 2 It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022. M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited Per The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The I.T.Act. After Considering The Taxes Deducted At Source, The Assessee Had Claimed Refund Of Inr 4,68,29,020 In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…rticipated in the said proceedings. Similar view has been taken by the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Intel Technology India (P) Ltd. 380 ITR 272 (Kar.) (ii) eMudhra Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 550 (Kar.) (iii) Spice Enfotainment reported in 247 CTR 500 (SC). 12. The learned DR strongly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. (supra). In the case of relied on by the learned DR, the assessee, namely, Mahagun Realtors Private Limited (MRPL) was amalgamated with other group companies, i.e., Mahagun India Private Limited (MIPL) with appointe…

A.C.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Pearltree Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgated With India Cable Net Company Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2392/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar] "ी संजय गग" "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम"

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 391Section 68

…sent to the assessee and these notices could not be served and assessment was completed ex-parte vide order dated 31.12.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment order by holding the decision in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2011] 247 CTR 500 (Del) which has also been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.11.2017 and also relied various other decisions. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has quashed the assessment order on the ground of assessment was made in the case of non-existent entity which is not challenged by the Department before us. Even on merit, the loan taken from India…

M/S Marlabs Innovations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 457/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Marlabs Innovations Pvt. Ltd., (Successor Of Marlabs Software Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 14Th Floor, Citrine Block-4, Commissioner Of Bagmane World Technology Income Tax, Centre, Circle – 4(1)(2), Marathalli Outer Ring Vs. Bangalore. Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aaccm6627Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri L. Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/12/2018 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Various Issues On The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made In Respect Of The International Transactions Between Assessee & Its Ae.

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(31)Section 394

…or and technical lapse on the part of the respondent. No prejudice was caused." 28. The decision in Spice Entertainment was distinguished with the following observations: "19. Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012) 247 CTR 500.Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name o…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 2 vs. M/S Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

…e Delhi High Court in Spice Infotainment Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax,7 (hereafter ‘Spice’) held that assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating company which was ceased to exist in law, was invalid and 6 (1990) Supp (1) SCR 332 7 [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Del). This judgement has also been referred to as Spice Entertainment v. Commissioner of Income Tax in 2012 (280) ELT 43 (Del.). 8 untenable and such defect would not be cured in terms of section 292B of the Act. Further, the fact that amalgamated company participated in the assessment proceedings would not operate as estoppel. 15…

Bbigplas Poly Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pcit, Kolkata-1 Bbigplas Poly Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Room No. 22A, Vs. 23, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072. Pan: Aadck7909G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Smt. Puja Somani, Ca Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit. Date Of Hearing :18.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement :.07.03.2022 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Ld. Pcit On Jurisdictional Issue As Well As On Merit. The Assessee Has Challenged The Exercise Of Revisionary Jurisdiction By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act On A Non-Existent Company, M/S. Sri Ram Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. On The Ground Of Being Void, Ab-Initio & Invalid In The Eyes Of Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Smt. Puja Somani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…t proceedings cannot debar the assessee from challenging the proceedings on this ground as there is no estoppel against law. The Hon’ble Court has followed the decision of the coordinate bench of two judges in the case of CIT Vs Spice Infotainment Ltd. (2012) 247 CTR 500(Delhi) wherein similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The assessee has also relied on the decision of tribunal in the case of BASF Ltd Vs DCIT(supra) wherein it has been held that that assessment in the name of non-existent entity is invalid and has to be quashed and the tribunal has followed the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex…

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…ror and technical lapse on the part of the respondent. No prejudice was caused.” 28 The decision in Spice Entertainment was distinguished with the following observations: “19. Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012) 247 CTR 500. Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5022/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void; (x) in (a) Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) (Civil Appeal 4317/2014 whereagainst was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/)…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5021/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void; (x) in (a) Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) (Civil Appeal 4317/2014 whereagainst was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/)…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 5020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void; (x) in (a) Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) (Civil Appeal 4317/2014 whereagainst was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/)…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4561/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void; (x) in (a) Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) (Civil Appeal 4317/2014 whereagainst was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/)…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4560/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void; (x) in (a) Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) (Civil Appeal 4317/2014 whereagainst was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/)…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in:

ITA 4559/DEL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT- DR
Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void; (x) in (a) Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 250 Taxman 409/397 IT R 681 (Delhi), (b) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2014] 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) (Civil Appeal 4317/2014 whereagainst was dismissed on 2nd November, 2017), (d) CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 14b Taxman 701 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana High Court), (e) CIT v. Harjinder Kaur [2009] 180 Taxman 23/3 iO ITR 71 (Punj. & Har.) and (/)…

Siemens Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1146/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesiemens Ltd (Successor Vs. Dcit, In Interest To Siemens Corporate Circle - Building Technologies 8(2)(1), Pvt Ltd.,) Room No. 615, 6Th Birla Aurora, Level 20, Floor, Aayakar P.No. 1080, Ar. Annie Bhavan, Mk Road, Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400030. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs0764L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ajit Pal Singh.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ror and technical lapse on the part of the respondent. No prejudice was caused.” 28 The decision in Spice Entertainment was distinguished with the following observations: “19. Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012) 247 CTR 500. Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Anirudh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3201/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Senior DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3201/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ITO, Ward 2 (4), vs. M/s. Archit Securities Private Limited New Delhi. (Successor of M/s. Anirudh Overseas Pvt.Ltd., 26 – A, Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AAACA8200B) CO No.3/Del/2021 (in ITA No.3201/Del./2017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) ITO, Ward 2 (4), vs. M/s. Anirudh Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. (Successor of M/s. Anirudh Overseas Pvt.Ltd., 26 – A, Sadhna Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017. (PAN : AAACA…

M/S. V3S Infratech Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3499/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Padamapani Bora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…cheme of amalgamation; that participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law; and that this position holds the field in view of the judgment in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2012] 247 CTR 500 (Del.). 9. On a perusal of the record, we find that the facts are similar. In spite of the fact of amalgamation pursuant to the order dated 27.03.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, M/s. YMC Buildmore Pvt. Ltd. got amalgamated in M/s. Gahoi Buildwell Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2006, intimated to the Assessing Officer on 16.02.2010 itself, which…