Valvoline Cuminus Ltd. v. DCIT

307 ITR 103High Court2008#3906 most cited

What is Valvoline Cuminus Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Proceedings initiated by an officer lacking proper jurisdiction are invalid, even if the assessee filed their return with a different officer.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Valvoline Cuminus Ltd · DCIT · 307 ITR 103 · jurisdictional defect · invalid notice · section 127 · section 143(2) · proper officer · territorial jurisdiction

Judgments citing Valvoline Cuminus Ltd. v. DCIT

M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. Limited, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…erely on the ground that the other officers also had concurrent jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. Para.19. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Del.HC) wherein it has been held as under: - P a g e 16 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 "When a power has been conferred upon two authorities concurrently, either one of them can exercise that power and once a decision is taken to exercise the power by either of those authorities, that exercise must be terminated by that a…

M/S. Regional Oilseeds Growers Co-Operative Societies Union Limited, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere

ITA 1355/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 120(4)(b)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ppellant vide submissions dated 01.12.2023, it is submitted that the appellant has placed reliance on three judgments in his written submissions for supporting his case. 7. It is submitted that the facts of the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 103/171 Taxman 241 (Delhi) will not applicable to the present case, the was in respect of recovery proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax subsequent to the completion of assessment by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax. For this reliance is placed on the case of Harvinder Singh Jaggi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax […

Anil Kumar Khadelwal(HUF), Bareiily vs. ITO-1(1), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Khandelwal(Huf) V. The Ito 1(1) 39, Moar Kothi, Gangapur Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacha2002E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 15.3.2022, For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because No Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued By The Ito-1(1), Bareilly-New, Being The Income-Tax Authority Vested With The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The Appellant, The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed By The Said Income-Tax Authority Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction & Consequently The Said Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Bad In Law & Thus Was Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Because Even If It Is Held That The Acit-1, Bareilly Was Validly Vested With The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer On The Date Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 24.09.2018 Then Also The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Cannot Be Held To Be Legally Valid As The Same Was Not Passed By The Acit-1, Bareilly Who Initiated The Regular Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 24.09.2018. Page 2 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani D.R
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…the same Assessing Officer needs to complete the assessment, who had issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act and in this regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Valvoline Cummins Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT’, 307 ITR 103 (Del) and my attention was invited to the relevant findings of the Hon'ble Court in paragraphs 29 & 30. As regards the submissions of the ld. D.R. on the issue that assessee had not objected to the issue of jurisdiction as per criteria laid down under section 124 of the Act, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Hon'ble Jurisdic…

Nishakar Educational Trust, Niali vs. ITO (Exemption), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Nishakar Nishakar Educational Educational Trust, Trust, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ito (Exemptions), At:Village Podana, Po: Kapasi, At:Village Podana, Po: Kapasi, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ps: Niali, Distl Cuttack Ps: Niali, Distl Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aabtn 2929 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.K.Bal, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 /5/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18 /5 5/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar In Appeal No.0450/16-17 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri K.K.Bal, Ld Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. S.C.Mohanty, Ld Sr Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 11Section 127(2)(a)Section 12ASection 143(2)

…the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dillip K. Chatterjee in ITA No.160/CTK/2010 order dated 23.8.2018, wherein, the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cumins Limited vs DCIT, 307 ITR 103 (Del) had held that when one AO has already exercised his jurisdiction, another AO cannot exercise his jurisdiction for the same assessee by issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act,, when no order u/s.127 of the Act was passed P a g e 11 | 20 Assessment Year : 2013-14 by the competent authority under that section. It was the submission that on thi…

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8570/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2021AY 2007-08
Section 115JSection 120Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…trial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4893/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 4893/Mum/12 2006-07 M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., ACIT-2(3) Bombay House, MUMBAI 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, 2545/Mum/12 2007-08 MUMBAI [PAN: AAACT4060A] M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., 4543/Mum/12 2006-07 Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody ACIT-2(3) Street, MUMBAI Fort, MUMBAI 2487/Mum/12 2007-08 [PAN: AAACT4060A] Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, AR Date of Hearing : 31-01-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2…

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4543/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent 4893/Mum/12 2006-07 M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., ACIT-2(3) Bombay House, MUMBAI 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, 2545/Mum/12 2007-08 MUMBAI [PAN: AAACT4060A] M/s. Tata Sons Ltd., 4543/Mum/12 2006-07 Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody ACIT-2(3) Street, MUMBAI Fort, MUMBAI 2487/Mum/12 2007-08 [PAN: AAACT4060A] Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji, AR Date of Hearing : 31-01-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 03-02-2…

Neel Constructions, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4962/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4961/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4962/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) M/S Neel Constructions The Dy. Commissioner Of 31, Vardhman Chambers Income Tax, Panvel Circle, बनाम/ Sector-17, Vashi Khanda Colony, Panvel Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadfn0640G अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR
Section 120Section 124(1)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…09-10 before obtaining an order u/s 127 of the Act decentralizing the change of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel relied on decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cuminus Ltd vs DCIT (2008) 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.4961&4962/Mum/2017 Neel Constructions 307 ITR 103 (Del.) to submit that once the proper officer exercised the jurisdiction, the subsequent notice by an officer not so authorized is invalid. In view of this discussion, we are of the view that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction. As regards to the one argument of the DR that the returned filed by the assessee was…

Neel Constructions, Navi Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4961/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4961/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4962/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) M/S Neel Constructions The Dy. Commissioner Of 31, Vardhman Chambers Income Tax, Panvel Circle, बनाम/ Sector-17, Vashi Khanda Colony, Panvel Vs. Navi Mumbai-400703 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadfn0640G अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR
Section 120Section 124(1)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…09-10 before obtaining an order u/s 127 of the Act decentralizing the change of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel relied on decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cuminus Ltd vs DCIT (2008) 5 | P a g e ITA Nos.4961&4962/Mum/2017 Neel Constructions 307 ITR 103 (Del.) to submit that once the proper officer exercised the jurisdiction, the subsequent notice by an officer not so authorized is invalid. In view of this discussion, we are of the view that notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is without jurisdiction. As regards to the one argument of the DR that the returned filed by the assessee was…

Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 263

…trial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Neel Constructions, Navi Mumbai vs. Jt CIT Panvel RG, New Panvel

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7050/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7049 & 7050/Mum/2014 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11) Neel Constructions The Asst. Commissioner Of 317, Vardhman Chamber Income Tax, Sector-17, Vashi Navi The Jt. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Mumbai-400 703 Tax, Panvel Circle Vs. “Trifed Tower”, 3 Rd Floor, Opp. Khanda Colony, New Panvel (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadfn0640G अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2019

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha, DR
Section 124(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री श्री एम बालगणेश, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALAGANESH, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 7049 & 7050/Mum/2014 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11) Neel Constructions The Asst. Commissioner of 317, Vardhman Chamber Income Tax, Sector-17, Vashi Navi The Jt. Commissioner of Income बनाम/ Mumbai-400 703 Tax, Panvel Circle Vs. “TRIFED Tower”, 3 rd Floor, Opp. Khanda Colony, New Panvel (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्था…

Neel Constructions, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Panvel Cir, New Panvel

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7049/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 7049 & 7050/Mum/2014 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11) Neel Constructions The Asst. Commissioner Of 317, Vardhman Chamber Income Tax, Sector-17, Vashi Navi The Jt. Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Mumbai-400 703 Tax, Panvel Circle Vs. “Trifed Tower”, 3 Rd Floor, Opp. Khanda Colony, New Panvel (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadfn0640G अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.08.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2019

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha, DR
Section 124(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री श्री एम बालगणेश, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALAGANESH, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 7049 & 7050/Mum/2014 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11) Neel Constructions The Asst. Commissioner of 317, Vardhman Chamber Income Tax, Sector-17, Vashi Navi The Jt. Commissioner of Income बनाम/ Mumbai-400 703 Tax, Panvel Circle Vs. “TRIFED Tower”, 3 rd Floor, Opp. Khanda Colony, New Panvel (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्था…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 872/MUM/2013[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…trial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 871/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…trial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…trial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Sabras Investment & Trading P.Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemicals Ltd), Mumbai vs. JCIT Sp RG, 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2013[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…trial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Sabras Investment & Trading Co. Ltd ( Now Merged With Tata Chemical Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2012[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 915/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 916/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 917/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 918/Mum/2012 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 869/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1996-97) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 870/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1997-98) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 871/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1998-99) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 872/Mum/2013 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 1999-00)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)

…trial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 194 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Gui). Recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

M/S Bsn Joshi & Sons Ltd, Khurda vs. ACIT(OSD), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/CTK/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 124Section 124(2)Section 127Section 142Section 143(3)

…ficers also had concurrent jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. 19. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cumins Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and others, [2008] 307 ITR 103 (Delhi), wherein it has been held as under :- “When a power has been conferred upon two authorities concurrently, either one of them can exercise that power and once a decision is taken to exercise the power by either of those authorities, that exercise must be terminated by that authority only. It is not that one authority can start exercising a…

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5572/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Tata Sons Limited Vs. Addl.Cit-2(3) Bombay House Room No.556 Homi Mody Street Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) & Addl.Cit-2(3) Vs. Tata Sons Limited Room No.552, 5Th Floor Bombay House Aaykar Bhawan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Aarti Vissanji Revenue By R.Manjunatha Swamy

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

…ial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 19 4 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj) . Recently Hon’ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5090/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am Tata Sons Limited Vs. Addl.Cit-2(3) Bombay House Room No.556 Homi Mody Street Aaykar Bhawan Mumbai-400 001 M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) & Addl.Cit-2(3) Vs. Tata Sons Limited Room No.552, 5Th Floor Bombay House Aaykar Bhawan Homi Mody Street M.K.Road Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaact4060A Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Aarti Vissanji Revenue By R.Manjunatha Swamy

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

…ial Corporation Limited Vs. CIT 19 4 ITR 548 (Bombay). Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi Vs. CIT 113 ITR 22 (Guj) . Recently Hon’ble Delhi High Court handled a similar situation in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd 307 ITR 103 (Del) wherein challenge was made to the jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax who had passed the assessment order. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that challenge of jurisdiction must be made within the stipulated time during the course of assessment proceedings in view of restrictions imposed by the provisions contained…

Valvoline Cuminus Ltd. v. DCIT (307 ITR 103) — Cited in 30 Judgments | BharatTax