CIT vs. S NET FREIGHT INDIA PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not dealt with the assessee's averments regarding its incorporation and initial directorship. The matter was relisted for the Revenue to examine the assessment records.
What were the facts?
The assessee company was incorporated by a foreign entity, and its initial directors were nominees of the foreign company. The CIT(A) order referred to submissions and annexures detailing this. However, neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had examined these assertions.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) properly examined the submissions and documents related to the incorporation and initial directorship of the assessee company.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . . . ITA 295/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. . . . versus . . . S NET FREIGHT INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through : Mr. S. Ramchandani, Advocate. . . . AND . . . ITA 296/2012 . . . CIT ..... Appellant . Through : Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. . . . versus . . . S NET FREIGHT INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent . Through : Mr. S. Ramchandani, Advocate. . . . CORAM: . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA . HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR . . . O R D E R . 18.05.2012 . . . C.M. No. 8268/2012 (exemption) in ITA No. 296/2012 . . . Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. . C.M. stands disposed of. . ITA No. 295/2012 . ITA No. 296/2012 . . . 1. The attention of learned counsel for the appellant has been drawn to page Nos. 45 and 46 of the paper book. CIT(A) in its order . . . ITA Nos. 295/2012 and 296/2012 page 1 of 2 . has referred in detail to the submissions made by the assessee and various annexures thereto. It is clear from the said submissions that S- Net Freight (India) Private Limited was incorporated by S-Net Freight (Holdings) Private Limited and the initial two directors were its nominees. The annexures referred therein include correspondence with various authorities in India. . 2. It is noticeable that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have dealt with and examined the said averments/assertions. . 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue prays for some time to examine the assessment records and find out whether these documents and contentions were raised before the Assessing Officer. . 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, who appears on advance notice, states that these contentions were raised and documents were filed before the Assessing Officer. . 5. Relist on 4th July, 2012. . . . SANJIV KHANNA, J. . . . . . R.V.EASWAR, J. . MAY 18, 2012 . AK . . . . . . . . . ITA Nos. 295/2012 and 296/2012 page 2 of 2 . . . . . $ 4 .
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026