Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP

369 ITR 113High Court2014#723 most cited

What is Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP authority for?

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP · Section 144C(1) · draft assessment order · final assessment order · Section 143(3) · jurisdictional defect · corrigendum · curing defects · eligible assessee · assessment procedure · limitation period

Also reported as

225 Taxmann 35128 Taxmann.com 426

Sections most often in play

Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 153CSection 132Section 147Section 9(1)Section 143(3)Section 127

Issues it is cited on

section 6(3)(ii)section 144c(15)(b)section 144c(15)section 92ca(3a)section 6(3)section 16asection 3aeligible assesseesection 92ca(4)make available conditionsection 44dasection 144c(10)

Judgments citing Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP

Global Hospitality Licensing Sarl, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Range - 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1136/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

For Appellant: Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Soumendu Kumar Das

…2(3)(2) of demand. Issue of notice of demand brings down the curtain on the process of assessment. Until notice of demand is issued, the assessment cannot be said to have concluded. 13. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. Vs. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad.) was confronted with a situation in which the AO, pursuant to the order of the TPO, passed a final assessment order instead of a draft order. A question arose as to whether the order so passed could be treated as a valid order. Accepting the contention of the assessee, the Hon’ble High Court set aside the order passed by the AO by observing…

Tubacex Prakash India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Cy/Asstt/CIT/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 979/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.3 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

Section 115JSection 12Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 92C

…ction 144C(1) of the Act but the same was not so passed, in the following decisions as well, the entire assessment proceedings have been held to be invalid and liable to be quashed: (i) Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 46 taxmann.com 100/225 Taxman 35/369 ITR 113 (Madras) affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon‘ble Madras HC in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 101 (Madras); International Air Transport Association v. Dy. CIT [2016] 68 (ii) taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, (iii) dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‘s SLP dismissed by the Hon‘ble Apex Court…

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Dentre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 1180/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Us, First We Would Like To Address Ground No.2 Wherein The Assessee Has Submitted That The Order Of The Ld. Tpo U/S.92Ca(3) Of The Act Dated 01/11/2019 Is Barred By Limitation & Hence, Invalid In Law.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 153Section 92C

…ction 144C(1) of the Act but the same was not so passed, in the following decisions as well, the entire assessment proceedings have been held to be invalid and liable to be quashed: (i) Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 46 taxmann.com 100/225 Taxman 35/369 ITR 113 (Madras) affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon‘ble Madras HC in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 101 (Madras); (ii) International Air Transport Association v. Dy. CIT [2016] 68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, (iii) dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‘s SLP dismissed by the 21 M/s. Teleperform…

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(3)

ITA 2877/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/ ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 234BSection 234DSection 30Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

…ction 144C(1) of the Act but the same was not so passed, in the following decisions as well, the entire assessment proceedings have been held to be invalid and liable to be quashed: Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 46 (i) taxmann.com 100/225 Taxman 35/369 ITR 113 (Madras) affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Madras HC in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 101 (Madras); International Air Transport Association v. Dy. CIT (ii) [2016] 68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Cisco Systems Services B V

ITA/427/2022HC Karnataka24 Feb 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Section 260

…hall not invalidate the draft assessment order as per Section 292B of the Act and it is a curable defect. 10. With these submissions, Shri. Aravind prayed for allowing these appeals. 6 (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad) ITA No.427/2022 A/W ITA No.428/2022,…

Atos India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 1795/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 40Section 40(3)Section 48Section 4oSection 92C

…ction 144C(1) of the Act but the same was not so passed, in the following decisions as well, the entire assessment proceedings have been held to be invalid and liable to be quashed: Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 46 (i) taxmann.com 100/225 Taxman 35/369 ITR 113 (Madras) affirmed by the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Madras HC in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 101 (Madras); International Air Transport Association v. Dy. CIT (ii) [2016] 68 taxmann.com 246 (Bombay); (iii) Zuari Cements Ltd. v. ACIT [Writ Petition No. 5557 of 2012, dated 21-2- 2013] (Andhra Pradesh)- Revenue‟s SLP dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court…

Zydus Healthcare Ltd, Gangtok vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…tice was also set aside. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP (C) [CC No. 16694/2013] on 27th September, 2013. 13. In Vijay Television (P) Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel [2014] 369 ITR 113 (Mad.), a similar question arose. There, the Revenue sought to rectify a mistake by issuing a corrigendum after the final assessment order was passed. Consequently, not only the final assessment order but also the corrigendum issued thereafter was challenged. Following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Zuari Cement Ltd. v. ACIT (su…

M/S Alpha Elsec Defence & Aerospace Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 912/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…Pradesh High Court in the case of Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. ACIT in Writ Petition (C) No. 5557 of 2012 dated 21.02.2013 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dispute Resolution Panel, Chennai reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad.). The learned D.R. had contended that the above judicial pronouncements cited supra are distinguishable since in the referred cases the entire assessment order was set aside by the ITAT wherein in the instant case only the comparability of three companies has been set aside by the ITAT. We find this contention of the learned D.R. to be fact…

M/S. Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 12(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2308/KOL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2308/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Philips India Limited.….............……….........…..........….…… Appellant 3Rd Floor, Tower A, Dlf Park, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcp9487A] Vs. Acit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata.......….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ketan K Ved, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Amal Kamat, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2019 Of The Assessing Officer (In Short The ‘A.O’) Passed U/S 92Ca(3) & 144C Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 14.05.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Impugned Assessment Order Framed By The Assessing Officer Is Null & Void Being Framed Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order. That The Assessing Officer Without Passing Of Draft Assessment Order & Without Giving Opportunity To The Assessee To File Objections Against The Said Draft Assessment Order As Per Provisions To Section 144C Of The

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 274Section 92C

…India Limited decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of “Jazzy Creations Pvt. Ltd.”(supra), wherein, the Tribunal while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of “Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd Vs DRP” [(2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad)] has quashed such an invalid assessment order which was framed without passing of draft assessment order and held that the subsequent corrigendum issued by the Assessing Officer did not have any legal sanctity. The relevant part of the order of the Tribunal, for the sake of completeness, is reproduced as under: “9. The scheme of Section 14…

Dsv Air & Sea Pvt. Ltd (Sucesssor to Panalpina World Transport (India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl /Jt/ACIT/ ITO/NFAC, Delhi

ITA 796/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…ll and void order is that it is considered as non est, meaning thereby, that it entails all the consequences of not having been passed at all and is ignored for all practical purposes. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. vs. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad) considered a case in which the assessment order was directly passed without routing through draft order or DRP. The Hon'ble Court held it to be a non- curable defect and resultantly the assessment was quashed. It was held that when there is an omission on the part of the AO to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act, such an…

Apache Footwear India Private Limited, Mambattu Village vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 385/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 144CSection 5

…o.419/PUN/2014] vii) Hon'ble ITAT Pune in DCIT Vs. Rehau Polymers Private Ltd Vs. ACIT [2017 85 taxmann.com 23] viii)Hon'ble ITAT Pune in Skoda Auto India Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2344/PU and 2012 ix) Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijay television Pvt Ltd Vs. DRP [(2014) 369 ITR 113] 8. The Appellant most respectfully prays that as per the submission made above and the judicial precedents cited, the draft order of the learned Assessing Officer is not as per the mandate of the provisions of section 144C and hence the draft assessment order and demand notice may be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra the ld. DR, had filed t…

Keller Ground Engineering India Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadhri, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 92C

…notice of demand. Issue of notice of demand brings down the curtain on the process of assessment. Until notice of demand is issued, the assessment cannot be said to have concluded. 13. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. Vs. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad.) was confronted with a situation in which the AO, pursuant to the order of the TPO, passed a final assessment order instead of a draft order. A question arose as to whether the order so passed could be treated as a valid order. Accepting the contention of the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order passed by the AO by observing…

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur vs. M/S. Trl Krosaki Refractories Limited, Jharsugudha

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 264/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…hout jurisdiction, null and void and unenforceable. Consequently, the demand notice dated 23.12.2011 issued by the respondent is set aside." 11. Similar is the view expressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated…

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur vs. M/S. Trl Krosaki Refractories Limited, Jharsugudha

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 263/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…hout jurisdiction, null and void and unenforceable. Consequently, the demand notice dated 23.12.2011 issued by the respondent is set aside." 11. Similar is the view expressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated…

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur vs. M/S. Trl Krosaki Refractories Limited, Jharasugudha

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 262/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…hout jurisdiction, null and void and unenforceable. Consequently, the demand notice dated 23.12.2011 issued by the respondent is set aside." 11. Similar is the view expressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated…

ACIT(Circle-1(1), Sambalpur vs. M/S. Trl Krosaki Refractories Limited, Jharsugudha

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 261/CTK/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…hout jurisdiction, null and void and unenforceable. Consequently, the demand notice dated 23.12.2011 issued by the respondent is set aside." 11. Similar is the view expressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated…

ACIT, Circle-1(!), Sambalpur vs. M/S. Trl Krosaki Refractories Limited, Jharsugudha

In the result, appeals of the revenue for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 260/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No.260 260/Ctk/2020: Assessment Year Assessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Korde/Bunty SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 92C

…hout jurisdiction, null and void and unenforceable. Consequently, the demand notice dated 23.12.2011 issued by the respondent is set aside." 11. Similar is the view expressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Vejay Television Pvt Ltd reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad). Similar is the view expressed by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs C- Sam (India) Pvt Ltd., 398 ITR 182 (Guj), Delhi High Court in the case of JCB India Ltd vs DCIT,398 ITR 189(Del) as also the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal of ITAT, Cuttack in the case of ARSS Atlanta JV vs ITO in ITA No.358 to 360/CTK/2018 order dated…

M/S Sap Labs India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…ull and void order is that it is considered as non est, meaning thereby, that it entails all the consequences of not having been passed at all and is ignored for all practical purposes. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 369 ITR 113/225 Taxman 35/46 taxmann.com 100 considered a case in which the assessment order was directly passed without routing through draft order or DRP. The Hon'ble Court held it to be a non-curable defect and resultantly the assessment was quashed. It was held that when there is an omission on the part of the AO to follow the mandatory procedure prescri…

D.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT DR
Section 92D

…ull and void order is that it is considered as non est, meaning thereby, that it entails all the consequences of not having been passed at all and is ignored for all practical purposes. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 369 ITR 113/225 Taxman 35/46 taxmann.com 100 considered a case in which the assessment order was directly passed without routing through draft order or DRP. The Hon'ble Court held it to be a non-curable defect and resultantly the assessment was quashed. It was held that when there is an omission on the part of the AO to follow the mandatory procedure prescri…

Ych Logistics (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…notice of demand. Issue of notice of demand brings down the curtain on the process of assessment. Until notice of demand is issued, the assessment cannot be said to have concluded. 13. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. Vs. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad.) was confronted with a situation in which the AO, pursuant to the order of the TPO, passed a final assessment order instead of a draft order. A question arose as to whether the order so passed could be treated as a valid order. Accepting the contention of the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the order passed by the AO by observing…