OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
Vivad se Vishwas: whether CBDT FAQ can narrow the beneficial statute beyond its text where an appeal was disposed in a particular manner.
Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Vivad se Vishwas: whether CBDT FAQ can narrow the beneficial statute beyond its text where an appeal was disposed in a particular manner.
- What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
- How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?
Material facts and procedural background
Oerlikon Balzers Coating India ] Private Limited ] A company registered under the Companies ] Act, 1956 and having its registered address ] at EL-22, J Block, ] MIDC Bhosari, Pune 411026 ] Through its Authorized Signatory and ] Director, ] Mr. Vivek Shrikrishna Pandit ] …Petitioner
… Mr. Sanket Bora a/w. Ms. Vidhi Punmiya i/by SPCM Legal for the petitioner.
Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned rejection order dated
Miscellaneous Application (‘MA’) filed by the Petitioner under
the application made by the Petitioner in Form 1 and Form 2
Appellant / assessee submissions
7. Mr. Sanket Bora learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the MA-2 ought to be construed as a pending
8. The learned counsel urged that section 2(j) (F) of the
u/s 264 of the Act on the specified date. It was submitted that the
Revenue / respondent submissions
The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.
Operative decision and relief
Ans. If the MA pending on 31 st January 2020 is in respect of an appeal which was dismissed in limine (before 31st January 2020) such MA is eligible. Disputed tax will be computed with reference to the appeal which was dismissed.
‘Appeal dismissed in limine’ we are of the view that the qualifying
the extent that it restricts appeals to the ones ‘dismissed in limine’
ii. The impugned rejection order dated 3 rd August 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside;
Ratio and legal principle
- The packaged judgment addresses Vivad se Vishwas: whether CBDT FAQ can narrow the beneficial statute beyond its text where an appeal was disposed in a particular manner. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
- Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Why this judgment matters
This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with vivad se vishwas: whether cbdt faq can narrow the beneficial statute beyond its text where an appeal was disposed in a particular manner. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.
Practitioner action points
- Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
- Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
- Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | Tribunal |
|---|---|
| Source integrity | Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; official primary replacement pending |
| Repository release | HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY |
| Reliance rule | Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote. |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- The same primary issue is raised.
- The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
- The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
- The material documentary record is substantially similar.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
- The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
- The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
- A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in OERLIKON BALZERS COATING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR?
Vivad se Vishwas: whether CBDT FAQ can narrow the beneficial statute beyond its text where an appeal was disposed in a particular manner.
Which facts matter most?
Oerlikon Balzers Coating India ] Private Limited ] A company registered under the Companies ] Act, 1956 and having its registered address ] at EL-22, J Block, ] MIDC Bhosari, Pune 411026 ] Through its Authorized Signatory and ] Director, ] Mr. Vivek Shrikrishna Pandit ] …Petitioner
What did the Court / Tribunal to be verified decide?
ii. The impugned rejection order dated 3 rd August 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside;
What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?
The packaged judgment addresses Vivad se Vishwas: whether CBDT FAQ can narrow the beneficial statute beyond its text where an appeal was disposed in a particular manner. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.
Which provisions should be checked?
The exact provisions identified in the packaged judgment and their version applicable to the relevant period.
When is the case most useful?
When the user's facts raise the same issue - Vivad se Vishwas: whether CBDT FAQ can narrow the beneficial statute beyond its text where an appeal was disposed in a particular manner - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.
What could distinguish the case?
Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.
Can it be cited without another current-law check?
No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.
Section / provision impact
- See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.
Case network
Similar issue / useful comparison
- Parth Developers vs. Pr. CIT - ITAT Indore
- PCIT v. Axis Bank Ltd - Court / Tribunal to be verified
- UCB India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT - Supreme Court of India
Different outcome / possible distinction
- Ajay Parasmal Kothari v. ITO - Partly allowed
- P.R. Packaging Service v. ACIT - Allowed
Full judgment and source control
Read / download packaged judgment record
Source class: SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING · Repository status: HOLD_SOURCE_OR_LATER_HISTORY
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.