Caps Gold Pvt.Ltd. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

PDF · subscribers
WP/11215/2022HC TelanganaHBHC01014543202209 March 2022Author: UJJAL BHUYAN,A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY2 pages
AI SummaryQuashed and Set Aside

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court held that all the writ petitions would be covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. The Court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The reasoning is based on the agreement of both parties that the present cases are squarely covered by the precedent set in the New India Assurance case. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of cases are identical to a previously decided precedent, the same outcome should follow. All other rights and contentions raised in the petitions were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, various private limited companies (assessees), have filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court. These petitions challenge orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other revenue authorities. The assessment years are not specified in the judgment. The procedural history involves the issuance of impugned orders and notices by the revenue authorities, which are now under challenge in these writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act are valid and sustainable in law, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee's contention is that these petitions are covered by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. The revenue's contention, as indicated by their agreement, is that they accept the applicability of the aforementioned judgment to the present cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 957-WP-9958-2022 @ Ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9958 OF 2022 Zentest Software Private Limited

….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12 and Anr. ….Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NOS. 10589, 11078, 11215, 12806, 14664 OF 2022, 1109, 1802, 2110, 6477, 7855 OF 2023 ---- Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani, Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar a/w Mr.Shashwat Rai i/b Keystone Partners, Mr. Rahul Hakani a/w Mr. Aovait Dalvi a/w Ms. Shreya Gosavi i/b Mr. Niyati Mankad Hakani, Mr. Harsh Shah, Mr. Harsh R. Kothari, Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Mihir Mehta, Mr. Jas Sanghavi, Mr. Suyog Bhave, Mr. Mohit Raval and Mr. Yash Prakash i/b PDS Legal, Mr. Sukhsagar Syal i/b Mr. Govind Jhaveri, Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal for Petitioners - Assessees in respective matters Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani, Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma a/w Ms. Shilpa Goal for Respondents-Revenue in respective matters

---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 19th JANUARY 2024 P.C. :

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.

1.

Counsel for Respondents agree. Therefore, impugned orders passed under Section 148 (A)d of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act in the respective petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. 1 Writ Petition No. 1945 of 2023 Dated 15th January 2024 Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2024.01.22 14:16:25 +0530

2/2 957-WP-9958-2022 @ Ors.doc

2.

Petitions disposed.

3.

Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside.

4.

All other rights and contentions which have been raised in the petitions are also kept open. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →