R.K.BHARADWAJ vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/713/2006HC BombayHCBM01001125200611 July 2006Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE V.C. DAGA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.9.2005 passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court decided to remit the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1, Nashik, for fresh consideration. The reasoning was based on the rival contentions regarding the company's status as a public or private limited company, which was central to the applicability of Section 179. The Court allowed the petitioner to produce additional material before the Assistant Commissioner and permitted the adjudicating authority to decide the issue in accordance with the law expeditiously. The operative direction was to set aside the order and remand the matter for a decision within three months from the receipt of the order's copy. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was remitted for adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri K.R. Bharadwaj, a Director of M/s Premier Electrodes Ltd., challenged an order dated 12.9.2005 passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that Section 179 is not applicable to public limited companies and presented a certificate showing a name change from Premier Electrodes Private Ltd. to Premier Electrodes Ltd. The Revenue argued that the income tax return indicated the company was a private limited company with no substantial public interest. The Bombay High Court heard both parties and considered the question raised in the petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable to a public limited company, or only to a private limited company? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: Section 179 is not applicable to public limited companies. The petitioner relied on a certificate from the Additional Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra State, Bombay, indicating a name change from Premier Electrodes Private Ltd. to Premier Electrodes Ltd., signifying its status as a public limited company. Revenue's contention: The income tax return filed by the petitioner shows the company as a private limited company where public is not substantially interested. The Revenue did not cite any specific authorities or precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 179

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTIION

WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.713 OF PETITION NO.713 OF PETITION NO.713 OF 2006 . 2006 . 2006 .

Shri K.R. Bharadwaj.

.. Petitioner.

V/s.

The Commissioner of Income tax & ors.... Respondents.

Mr. M.K. Kuklkarni for the petitioner.

Mr. Shiv Motariya for the respondents.

CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. : V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. : V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.

DATED DATED DATED : 11.7 .2006. : 11.7 .2006. : 11.7 .2006.

P.C. P.C. P.C. : : :

Heard.

Rule returnable forthwith.

Mr.Motariya waives service on behalf of the

respondents.

In this petition, petitioner is challenging

the order dated 12.9.2005 passed under section 179

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits

could not have been invoked

against

petitioner,

who

claims

Director

M/s

Learned

Counsel contends

not applicable public limited

companies.

has

produced a certificate issued by

Addl.

Registrar

Companies, Maharashtra State,

Bombay,

showing

change

name

from

Private

which

sufficient

indicate was

of a public limited company and not of a private

Ltd. company.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for

Revenue submits income tax return filed

by the petitioner shows that it is a private Ltd.

company and public is not substantially interested.

Having heard rival parties, in view of the

question

raised

petition,

necessary

set aside impugned order and remit

matter

Income-tax,

Circle-1,

Nashik,

consideration

afresh.

open

produce

additional

material before

support his contention

and

also open adjudicating authority

adjudicate the issue in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible.

In the result, impugned order is set aside.

The

matter

remitted

back

Income

Tax, Circle 1,

Nashik

decide

notice

under

I.T.

Act,

expeditiously

as possible, at

any

rate,

within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of

this order.

Rule is made absolute in terms of this order

with no order as to costs.

More judgments on Section 179

All 36 judgments and leading authorities on Section 179 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →