Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.21 seconds)

Stryton Exim India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-24(2), New Delhi on 23 October, 2018

10. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Marut Nandan & Co. vs. ITO [2025] (2) TMI-829 has held that re-assessment noticed issued u/s 148 of the Act in the name of the non-existent entity is clearly vitiated and rendered nonest in law by respectfully following the ratio laid 8 ITA No.5054/Del/2024 M/s Continental Exim Limited vs. ITO down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki has quashed the order u/s 148 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Impsat (P) Ltd. vs Ito on 28 July, 2004

22. From a reading of Sub-section (7) along with Subsection 31 of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, it becomes abundantly clear that the assessee to be assessed for income tax under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act must be a person in existence. Indisputably, a company is a juridical person but the moment it is struck off from the Register of Companies and is dissolved, it ceases to exist. Making of an assessment order against a non-existent company would be like passing a decree by a civil court against a dead person. Such order of assessment made against a non-existent entity would be nullity and would not give rise to any right or liability under such assessment order. The view we have taken is supported by a judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 17.09.2009 passed in ITA No. 273/2009 titled Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vived Marketing Servicing Pvt. Ltd. One paragraph judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of ITAT in Impsat Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO 276 ITR 136 (AT). One paragraph judgment reads thus:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 52 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

Sh. Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 18 March, 2019

7. With regard to the judgment in the case of Ravindra Kumar Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer [2023] 146 taxmannn.com 205 (Delhi), relying upon by CIT(A), NFAC while dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this issue, the Ld. AR submit that the facts of the case of the assessee are entirely different and are not applicable to the facts of the case of the assessee. In that case, initially the company was struck off by the ROC in the year 2017 due to default in filing statutory returns and, thereafter as per order passed by NCLT, name of the company was restored in the Register of Companies. However, during the interminent period notice u/s 148 was issued for AY 2012-13. Under these circumstances, the Hon,ble Jurisdictional High Court was of the view that the once the company is restored, the Company is deemed to have continued its existent as if its name was never been struck off. In the instant case, after struck off the name of the company from the Register of the Companies, there is no such restoration order is passed by any authority till date and company seized to exists with effect from 09.02.2016 i.e. the day when it was struck off from the Register of Companies. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act as a consequence of notice issued u/s 148 on 31st March, 2019 is bad in law and be quashed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next