How many judgments cite Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP?

140 judgments on BharatTax cite Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP (369 ITR 113), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 144C, Section 144C(1), Section 153C, Section 132, Section 147, Section 9(1).

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 144C Section 144C(1)Section 153C Section 132 Section 147 Section 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 16a section 3a eligible assessee section 92ca(4)make available condition section 44da section 144c(10)

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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Oil Company Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and cross- objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5398/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 5398 & 5399/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) DCIT, Central Circle-19 Vs. Newbury Oil Company Ltd., New Delhi C/o Mr. Aseem Chawla, Advocate E-200, Greater Kailash-I New Delhi PAN: AADCN3458P Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos. 475 & 476/Del/2015 (in ITA Nos. 5398 & 5399/Del/2015) (Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) DCIT, Central Circle-19 Vs. Newbury Oil Company Ltd., New Delhi C/o Mr. Aseem Chawla, Advocate E-200, Greater Kailash-I New…

Suretex Prophylactics (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.430/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 271Section 274

…case of JCB India Ltd. vs DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 189/Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Turner International India Pvt.Ltd., vs DCIT reported in (2017) 398 ITR 177/Decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Vijay Television (2014) 369 ITR 113. 10. On the contrary, the Ld.CIT.DR submitted that, order passed by assessing officer is valid as per section 144C of the Act. She placed reliance on following decisions in support of her submissions: Decision of Hon’ble Hydrabad Tribunal in case of BS Ltd. vs ACIT reported in (2000 1894 Taxmann.com 346 Decision of Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal in cas…

Louis Dreyfus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2381/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 143Section 144C

…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 16 ITA No.2381/Del./2014 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…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/77/2019HC Delhi24 Dec 2020

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)

…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. ACI…

Century Plyboards(India) Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Ltu, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 278/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)

…and erroneous and so untenable. According to him, the AO has to mandatorily follow the procedure prescribed u/s. 144C of the Act and for this proposition of law he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DRP 369 ITR 113 (Madras High Court) as well as CIT Vs. C Sam India Pvt. Ltd. 398 ITR 182 (Guj. High Court). In the light of the law and ratio laid in above cited decisions, and the facts discussed the Ld AR pleaded that the legal issue may be allowed and the final assessment order passed by the AO dated 27.01.2020 be held as null in the eyes of law. 6. For comp…

Mavenir India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Comverse Network System India Pvt. Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurgoan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 203/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 12Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-1’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16] M/s Mavenir India Pvt Ltd Vs The Dy.C.I.T [Previously known as M/s Comverse Circle - 2(1) Network Systems India Pvt Ltd New Delhi. 14th Floor, Tower B, Building No. 5 DLF Cyber City, New Delhi. PAN : AABCC 3425 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 24.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Assessee by : Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv Shri Rishab Malhotra, Adv Revenue by : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain,…

Olympus Medical Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8892/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Ys 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153BSection 156Section 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 20 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…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 9116/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 153B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I-2’ BENCH, NEW DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE] BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Perfetti Van Melle (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs. The A.C.I.T Global Business Park, Tower A Circle 3(1) First Floor, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana PAN: AAACP 2626 A [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 04.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 11.08.2020 Assessee by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Adv Ms. Deepika Aggarwal, Adv Revenue by : Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, A…

Nikon India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed

ITA 8753/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiita No. 8753/Del/2019 ( A.Y 2015-16)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 156Section 253(1)Section 271Section 274Section 92BSection 92C

…er instead of a draft assessment order. This is against the scheme envisaged in the said Section 144C of the Act and is, therefore, bad in law and void-ab-initio. The Ld. AR relied upon the Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in case of Vijay Television (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Madras) wherein it is held that non-passing of draft assessment order after adjustment made by the TPO renders proceedings null and void. This has been followed by various coordinate Benches of the Tribunal including the Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6288/ DEL / 2013, which has clearly held that passing of dra…

Nikon India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

Appeal are allowed

ITA 8752/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiita No. 8753/Del/2019 ( A.Y 2015-16)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 156Section 253(1)Section 271Section 274Section 92BSection 92C

M/S Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 stands allowed on legal issue raised and appeals filed by revenue for assessment years

ITA 900/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT – DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 263Section 292BSection 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 900 & 901/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2008 – 09 & 2009 – 10 M/s. Cisco Systems Deputy Commissioner of Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Brigade South Parade, Circle – 2(1) (1) (1), No. 10, M. G. Road, Vs. Room No. 217, 2nd Floor, Bengaluru – 560 001. BMTC Building, Koramangala, PAN NO : AACCC 4552 A Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT & ITA 1009 & 1010/Bang/2019 Assessment Years : 2008 – 09 & 2009 – 10 Joint Commissioner of M/s. Cisco Systems Capital Income – T…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

ITA/995/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

…ports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India [2016] 388 ITR 383 (Delhi) this court, after discussing the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, High Court of Bombay as well as the Madras High Court in Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 369 ITR 113 (Mad) has held that failure to pass Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page 46 of 74 a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act would render the final assessment order without jurisdiction, null and void and une…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -6 vs. Microsoft India ( R & D) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/993/2019HC Delhi02 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Vanderlande Industries B.V. Pune, Pune vs. ADIT, International Taxation-II, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 559/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Aliasger RampurawalaFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 274

…not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. Further, the 4 ITA No. 559/Hyd/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of Vijay Television (P) Ltd. reported in 369 ITR 113 (Mad) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court was pleased to set aside the order passed by the AO by observing where there was omission on the part of the AO to follow the mandatory procedures prescribed in the Act, such omission cannot be termed as a mere procedural irregularity and it cannot be cured. 7. In the present case, the AO proposed a total add…

M/S North Shore Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6830/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

…lied upon the following judgments:- i. Decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in cross appeals dated 13/04/18; ii. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of Vijay Television P. Ltd. Vs Dispute Resolution Panel & Ors. (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad.); iii. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Turner International India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 177 (Del.); iv. Decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lionbridge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2018-TII-268-HC-MUM-TP. 7. By way of alternative argument, he submitted that there is anothe…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…mitation, the corrigendum issued on 24th April 2019, is barred by limitation, hence, has to be quashed. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decision:– i) Sanco Trans Ltd. v/s ACIT, 61 ITD 317 (Mad.); and ii) Vijay Television Pvt. Ltd. v/s DRP, 369 ITR 113 (Mad.). 9 ACC Limited 10. Without prejudice, the leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, after the appeals filed by the assessee were heard by the higher appellate forum and pending for decision, learned Commissioner could not have passed the corrigendum violating the norms of judicial discipline. Further, he submitted, without affording an…

Iss Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., (As Agent for Maersk Tankers Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore), Navi Mumbai vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax ( International Taxation), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

…ntegra inasmuch as Hon'ble Madras High Court, following Hon'ble AP High Court's judgment in the case of Zurai Cement Ltd. v. ACIT (unreported judgment dated 21st February 2013 in WP No. 5557 of 2012) and in the case of Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP [2014] 369 ITR 113/225 Taxman 35/46 taxmann.com 100 (Mad.) has held that such an order will be "null and void". It is also pointed out that a Delhi bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Capsugel Healthcare Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT [2014] 50 taxmann.com 324/152 ITD 142 (Delhi- Trib.) and vice versa also holds so. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, sub…

Iss Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., (As Agent for Maersk Tankers Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore), Navi Mumbai vs. Dy. Commr. of Income Tax ( International Taxation), Rajkot

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/RJT/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Nov 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 172(3)Section 172(4)

M/S. Capstone Securities Analysis Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 251/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.251/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…omitting to pass a draft order and eventually denying the assessee an opportunity to raise objections before the DRP as enshrined under sub-section (4) of section 144C of the Act. 11. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Vijay Television (P) Ltd. Vs. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 (Mad.) was confronted with a situation similar to which is instantly prevailing inasmuch as the AO in that case, 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 H…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

ITA 1726/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…otice 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 obser…