EXELA TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BANCTEC TPS INDIA PVT. LTD. ) vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -15(1) (1) , MUMBAI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/11204/2022HC BombayHCBM01036126202205 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Court also set aside any consequential notices or orders. The decision was based on the agreement of counsels that the issue was covered by the High Court's recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and the petitioners were at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent, the same principle will be applied.

What were the facts?

The petitions were filed by Exela Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly BancTec TPS India Pvt. Ltd.) and Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Private Limited. The petitioners challenged orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Officer, respectively, along with other revenue authorities. The counsels for the petitioners stated that the issue in these petitions was covered by a recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The counsels for the respondents agreed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act are liable to be quashed and set aside. Assessee's contention: The issue is covered by the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel agreed that the issue is covered by the aforementioned judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP/11204/2022
WP/2786/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1/2 934-aswp-11204-2022 with 960-aswp-2786-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11204 OF 2022 Exela Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as BancTec TPS India Pvt. Ltd.) …Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2786 OF 2023 Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Private Limited …Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thane & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Paras Savla a/w Mr. Harsh Shah, Mr. Pratik Poddar, Ms. Akshita Bhandari for Petitioner in WP/11204/2022. Mr. Rahul Hakani a/w Mr. Advait Dalvi & Ms. Shreya Gosavi i/b Ms. Niyati Mankad for Petitioner in WP/2786/2023. Ms. Swapna Gokhale for Respondents-Revenue in WP/11204/2022. Mr. Ajeet Manwani for Respondents-Revenue in WP/2786/2023. CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 5th March 2024 PC : 1. Counsels for Petitioners state that the issue in these petitions will be covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.1. Counsels for respective Respondents agree. 2. Therefore, impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) of 1. Writ Petition No. 450 of 2023 dated 28th February 2024. Gitalaxmi

2/2 934-aswp-11204-2022 with 960-aswp-2786-2023.doc 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. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed and set aside. 3. Petitions disposed. 4. Since we have disposed these petitions only on the issue of limitation, Petitioners may raise the other contentions raised in these petitions independently, if the need arise in other matters. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gitalaxmi GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed by GITALAXMI KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2024.03.08 14:18:03 +0545

More judgments on Section 148A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →