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 366,339 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. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 193 & 3745/Mum/2006 Assessment Year : 2002-03 Tata Sons Limited, ACIT Circle 2(3), Bombay House, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Mumbai 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2002-03 ACIT Circle 2(3), Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai. Mumbai 400 001 Vs. PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) For the assessee : Shri Dinesh Vyas For the Revenue : Shri P C Chhotaray Date of Hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 O R D E R Per P…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 193 & 3745/Mum/2006 Assessment Year : 2002-03 Tata Sons Limited, ACIT Circle 2(3), Bombay House, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Mumbai 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2002-03 ACIT Circle 2(3), Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai. Mumbai 400 001 Vs. PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) For the assessee : Shri Dinesh Vyas For the Revenue : Shri P C Chhotaray Date of Hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 O R D E R Per P…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 193 & 3745/Mum/2006 Assessment Year : 2002-03 Tata Sons Limited, ACIT Circle 2(3), Bombay House, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Mumbai 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2002-03 ACIT Circle 2(3), Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai. Mumbai 400 001 Vs. PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) For the assessee : Shri Dinesh Vyas For the Revenue : Shri P C Chhotaray Date of Hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 O R D E R Per P…

M/S.Softtek India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT- Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1747/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 92ASection 92CSection 92D

…missed being not pressed. 7. The assessee has raised various other grounds in the grounds appeal. However in respect of ground no. 4, the assessee has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Valvoline Cummins Ltd. Vs DCIT (307 ITR 103) more particularly paragraph 29 and 30. The same are reproduced herein below. “29. It appears to us quite clearly that there is a distinction between concurrent exercise of power and joint exercise of power. When power has been conferred upon two authorities concurrently, either one of them can exercise that power and once a decision is taken t…

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4542/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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 (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…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4497/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2001-02 Tata Sons Ltd. Acit Cir. 2(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Aayakar Bhavan, Roon बनाम/ Mody Street No.555 M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaact4060A Assessment Year: 2001-02

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…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 (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…

Harvinder Singh Jaggi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 672/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Harvinder Singh Jaggi, D- Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of 13B, East Of Kailash, New Delhi- Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Civic 110065, Centre, New Delhi-110002 (Pan: Aaepj2007N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sh. Harvinder Singh Jaggi, D- Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of 13B, East of Kailash, New Delhi- Income Tax, Circle-22(1), Civic 110065, Centre, New Delhi-110002 (PAN: AAEPJ2007N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. J.S. Kochar, FCA & Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv. Respondent by Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.DR Date of hearing 14.12.2015 Date of pronouncement 12.02.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: The present appeal by the assessee is directed against the or…

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees stand allowed on legal grounds Nos

ITA 6947/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…vide its grounds of appeal and written submissions. To support this proposition, the ld. AR placed reliance on various judgments of Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Valvoline Cummins Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 307 ITR 103 [Del]. 21. On the second contention, the ld. AR submitted that in the case of Jasjit Singh [supra] it has been categorically held that the cut off date for issuance of notice u/s 153C has to be reckoned from the date of handing over of books to the AO of the other person and the said findings is applied to the facts of the assessee, pertain to A…

Commssioner of Income Tax Delhi-Xvi vs. S.S. Ahluwalia

ITA - 255 / 2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…as little scope for interference. An assessee has no vested right to have his assessment decided by an officer at a specific place. Decision of the Delhi High Court in Valvoline Cummins Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Delhi) relates to a different factual 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 38 of 61 matrix. An application under Section 220(6) of the Act was filed but the assessee was advised by Additional Commissioner to approach Deputy Commissioner, who had concurrent…

Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. S.S. Ahluwalia

ITA/255/2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…as little scope for interference. An assessee has no vested right to have his assessment decided by an officer at a specific place. Decision of the Delhi High Court in Valvoline Cummins Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (2008) 307 ITR 103 (Delhi) relates to a different factual 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 38 of 61 matrix. An application under Section 220(6) of the Act was filed but the assessee was advised by Additional Commissioner to approach Deputy Commissioner, who had concurrent…