Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: nonexistent entity in Acit Circle 1(2)(1) , Mumbai vs M B Patil Construction Limited , Mumbai on 16 April, 2024Matching Fragments
(a) Names of both amalgamating and amalgamated company was mentioned in the assessment order;
(b) Even otherwise, the mistake is curable u/s 292B
(c) Assessment and subsequently appeal was represented by Amalgamated company and no prejudice is caused to the parties;
(d) In Spice, the final order only referred to the name of nonexistent entity without any reference to the amalgamated company;
(e) Even as per decision in Spice, if the order is passed on the resulting company the same shall not be void - hence in present case since both the names were mentioned it cannot be regarded as a jurisdictional defect;
e) The order passed by the TPO in the name of SPIL, a nonexistent entity was invalid in the eyes of the law;
f) SPIL ceased to be an "eligible assessee", in terms of section 144C(15) (b) of the Act. Consequently, there was no requirement to pass a draft assessment order/reference to DRPetc.;
g) The final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 is beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4) of the Act.
h) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid [refer: Spice Entertainment vs. CIT, CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi); affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No. 3125 of 2015, CIT v. Micron Steels (P.) Ltd. 372 ITR 386 (Delhi), CIT v. Micra India (P) Ltd. 231 Taxman 809 (Delhi)].