Which cases are most cited on Section 140?

CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 272) — 45 citing judgments; Sky Light Hospitality v. ACIT (259 Taxmann 390) — 9 citing judgments; CIT v. Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. (134 Taxmann 29) — 7 citing judgments; Ashraf Aziz Kasmani v. ITO (92 Taxmann.com 293) — 7 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 140?

BharatTax indexes 100 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 140 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 140 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 140 of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 272) is the decision most relied on for Section 140, cited in 45 judgments. When an amalgamating company ceases to exist due to a scheme of arrangement or merger, any subsequent assessment or action under the Income-tax Act initiated against that non-existent entity is void ab initio, as it is not a 'person' under Section 2(31).

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.265

Section 140 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 265 (Return by whom to be verified) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 265 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 140 is CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd. (380 ITR 272), cited in 45 of the 100 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 140

CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd.

380 ITR 272 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

When an amalgamating company ceases to exist due to a scheme of arrangement or merger, any subsequent assessment or action under the Income-tax Act initiated against that non-existent entity is void ab initio, as it is not a 'person' under Section 2(31).

Sky Light Hospitality v. ACIT

259 Taxmann 390 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd.

134 Taxmann 29 · High Court

citing judgments

Ashraf Aziz Kasmani v. ITO

92 Taxmann.com 293 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 140

Maruthi Constructions, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed being not maintainable

ITA 91/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.91/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Maruthi Constructions Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Pan:Aamfm5200E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: /04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20/06/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, Despite The Notices Issued To The Assessee Through Rpad As Well As On The Email Id Given In Form- 36. Further, It Transpires From The Record That This Appeal Is Filed Belatedly & There Is A Delay Of 145 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Also Not Signed & Verified The Memorandum Of The Appeal In Form-36 As Well As Grounds Of Page 1 Of 2

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 253

New Cochin Real Estate Developers, Kochi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Kochi

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 925/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

New Cochin Real Estate Developers, Kochi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Kochi

The appeal is dismissed both on the grounds of delay and latches and also as defective appeal

ITA 924/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Wanbury Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6664/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153(1)

Grand Consulting Services Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 481/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 140Section 142(1)Section 144

DCIT CC-07, New Delhi vs. Varun Beverages (International) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4989/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.4989 & 4991/Del/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Varun Beverages (International) Ltd., Cc-07, R/O F-2/7, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi. Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg7763M

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292B

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi 10 vs. Guptajee and Company

Appeals are disposed of accordingly, along with

ITA/136/2021HC Delhi06 Aug 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 173

Mayurdhwaj Projects P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 5645/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Ms. Madhumita Royita No.5645/Del/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 Mayurdhwaj Projects P. Vs. Dcit, Circle – 16 (2) Ltd., C/O Luthra & New Delhi – 110 002 Luthra, Lae Offices, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba, New Delhi -110 001 Pan No. Aaecm 7077 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By -None- Revenue By Sh. Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/05/2024 Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement Order Per Madhumita Roy:

Section 140Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 250(6)Section 41

Grand Consulting Services Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer -2 (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 514/IND/2023[2012-2013]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanigrand Consulting Servides Pvt. Ito, 2(1) Ltd. Indore 403 C 4Th Floor Gravity Mall 27 Vs. Mechanic Nagar Bhamori (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcg4729N Assessee By Shri Manish Dafria, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 253(1)

Centenary Baptist Church, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer- Exemptions 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 118/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR

Section 140Section 147Section 253

Centenary Baptist Church, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 117/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.AR

Section 140Section 147Section 253

Baso Devi & Ors vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors

CWP/18769/2003HC Punjab & Haryana22 Feb 2024

Bench: Us Are Legal Heirs Of Late Megh Raj Who Have Come In Second Round Of Litigation Before This Court After The Earlier Writ Petition Filed By Them Resulted In The Same Position As It Stood Prior To The Passing Of High Court’S Order. 2.

Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(a)Section 148Section 234A