9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any manner, further the Revenue’s contentions. This Court is of the opinion that the ruling in Spice Entertainment Ltd. ( 2011 (8) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) is categorical, in that, if the assessment is concluded in favour of a non existing entity, then notwithstanding Section 292B, the position does not improve. Applying Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra), this Court had in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dimension Apparels Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (11) TMI 181 - DELHI HIGH COURT) also held that the position taken or urged by the assessee cannot be held against it if the primary jurisdiction does not exist i.e. to conclude an assessment in the name of a non existing entity. - Decided against revenue - ITA 135/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2018 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, the respondent addressed a letter to the PRO and other tax authorities on 25.05.2009. In these circumstances, notice was issued to the old company (by then non-existent) under Section 142(1) of the Act on 10.08.2009. Since international transactions were involved, the AO referred the matter to the Transfer Pricing Officer based on whose report a draft assessment order was made on 29.12.2009. The dispute resolution panel made its recommendations/returned findings on 20.09.2010 and a final assessment was framed on 28.10.2010 but in the name of the old company. It was in these circumstances that the respondent preferred an appeal to the ITAT and urged an additional ground that the assessment was framed in the name of a non-existing en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have directed the framing of an assessment in favour of a non existing company and therefore directed the AO to frame it in the name of the respondent/assessee, which it did. It is also contended that the DRP rendered express findings that the proceedings before it in the earlier round before the Tribunal were in continuation of the assessment proceedings and that framing final assessment, after remitting in the name of the respondent/assessee, was justified in law. It was submitted that in these circumstances the facts here are entirely different from the facts that the Court had to consider in Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) and all other tests that followed it. 5. The assessee, which is represented on advance notice, urges that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
