Loading High Court cases…
486 orders · Page 8 of 10
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not have a valid reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, making the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, invalid. The Court found that the transfer of shares by the petitioner to Nerka Chemicals Private Limited was unequivocally a gift, as admitted by the revenue itself, and no consideration was received. Section 47(iii) of the Act clearly provides that no capital gains shall be charged on the transfer of a capital asset by way of gift. The proviso to Section 47(iii) and the further proviso to Section 48 of the Act, which the revenue attempted to invoke to substitute market value for consideration, were found to be inapplicable. The former proviso applies only to specific types of shares allotted under Employee Stock Option Plans, which was not the case here. The latter proviso also pertains to situations covered by the proviso to Section 47(iii). Furthermore, Section 50CA and Section 50D of the Act, relied upon by the revenue, were inserted with effect from dates subsequent to the relevant assessment year and also required consideration to have been received, which was absent. Therefore, the Court concluded that the preconditions for reopening the assessment were not met, and the reassessment proceedings were liable to be quashed. The Rule issued was made absolute.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated September 23, 2015, and remanded the matter to respondent no. 2 for de novo consideration. The Court reasoned that subsequent judicial decisions, like the ITAT's order for Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, clarify the correct legal position and operate retrospectively, as established in cases like Indusind Bank Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Ors. and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. The Court also noted, citing Union of India and Ors. V/s. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., that the mere pendency of an appeal by the department against an appellate order does not provide grounds for not following it, unless its operation is suspended. Respondent no. 2 is directed to consider and apply the law as laid down by the ITAT, unless distinguishable on facts. All rights and contentions are kept open. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO). The court noted that the query regarding the provision for bad and doubtful debts under Section 36(1)(viia) was raised during the original assessment proceedings, and the assessee had provided a detailed reply, including clarification that no deduction was claimed for rural advances. The AO's satisfaction with the assessee's explanation during the original assessment, despite the availability of the Supreme Court's decision in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. vs CIT, indicated that the issue was considered. The court found that the AO's subsequent belief that income had escaped assessment was not based on new material but on a re-evaluation of the same facts, which constitutes a change of opinion. Furthermore, the court observed that if the assessee had not claimed any deduction for rural advances, there was no basis for escapement of income, even in light of the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. judgment. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the notice for reopening and the order rejecting objections were quashed.
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision on all three issues. Regarding the first issue, the Court agreed with the ITAT's factual finding that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover interest-free advances, applying the principle from Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. that if interest-free funds are sufficient to meet investments, it can be presumed that investments were made from such funds. For the second issue concerning Section 68 additions, the Court found that the ITAT had come to factual findings that the AO had not properly examined the evidence, and that the assessee had provided confirmations and demonstrated repayments for the cash credits in question. The Court agreed that no case was made out for interference. On the third issue, the Court agreed with the ITAT that the additions aggregating to Rs. 10.89 crore had attained finality as the CIT(A) had deleted them and the Revenue had not challenged that deletion. Therefore, the AO was not legally entitled to make these additions again in the second round of proceedings. The Court found no merit in the appeal.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue in both writ petitions is covered by the recent judgment of the Court in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and 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. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court disposed of the petitions solely on the issue of limitation, as indicated by the statement that the petitions were disposed of "only on the issue of limitation." The Court further clarified that the petitioners may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in other matters.
The High Court held that the sanction for the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The court noted that the impugned order and notice, both dated April 11, 2022, were issued for Assessment Year 2018-19 and were beyond a period of three years. Consequently, the sanctioning authority should have been the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151, which was inserted with effect from April 1, 2023, was not applicable to the present case. Relying on its own previous decision in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the court found the sanction to be invalid. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order and notice. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all rights and contentions were kept open.
The High Court held that the sanction for the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148, both dated April 5, 2022, was invalid. This was because the assessment year was 2018-19, and the impugned actions were issued beyond a period of three years. Consequently, the sanctioning authority, as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ought to have been the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). The proviso to Section 151, which was inserted with effect from April 1, 2023, was not applicable to the present case. Following its own precedent in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the Court found the sanction to be invalid. Accordingly, the impugned order and notice were quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions were kept open.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present petitions was covered by its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and 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. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court noted that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation. It further clarified that the petitioners could raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, the impugned orders and notices should be quashed on that ground.
The Bombay High Court accepted the statement made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the revenue. The Court deemed the proceedings initiated on March 31, 2023, as dropped. The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) to initiate fresh proceedings. Crucially, the Court stipulated that the Petitioner shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the Authority shall follow the due procedure laid down in law. The Court also clarified that the dropping of the earlier proceedings should not be used by the Petitioner as a ground to object to the initiation of new proceedings. The Writ Petition was partly allowed with these directions, and the Civil Application was disposed of as it would not survive.
The Bombay High Court held that 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 both petitions are quashed and set aside. The Court's reasoning was based on the agreement of both parties that the issue was covered by the recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the orders and notices, including any consequential notices or orders. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and petitioners may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in other matters. No other issues were decided on merits.
The High Court held that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the sanction should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not under Section 151(i). Consequently, the sanction was deemed invalid. The Court reasoned that if the sanction is invalid, the notice issued based on it is also invalid and must be quashed. Furthermore, if an assessment order was passed relying on an incorrect sanction, that assessment order would also have to be quashed. The Court found that the principles laid down in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited (supra) squarely applied to the present petition. Therefore, all notices and orders impugned in the petition were quashed and set aside, along with any consequential notices, assessment orders, and subsequent orders for Assessment Year 2016-2017.
The High Court held that the issue in the petition is covered by its recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.* Both counsels agreed with this position. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 8th April 2021 issued under Section 148A(b), the letter dated 27th May 2022, the order dated 20th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d), and the notice dated 20th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of on the issue of limitation, and the petitioner was permitted to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in another matter. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is covered by a binding precedent, the court will apply that precedent.
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 11th June 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 28th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notice dated 28th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court disposed of the petition, stating that it was disposed of only on the issue of limitation. The Court further clarified that the petitioner may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in another matter. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is covered by a binding precedent of the High Court, the impugned actions based on that issue should be quashed.
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated May 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the impugned order dated July 29, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The court also quashed and set aside any consequential notices or orders. The decision was based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue that the issue was covered by the High Court's recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The court explicitly stated that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and the petitioner was granted liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in another matter. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is covered by a binding precedent of the same court, the impugned proceedings should be decided in line with that precedent, particularly when both parties agree.
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.
The High Court held that the issues in the present petition are covered by its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 27th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed. The Court explicitly stated that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and the petitioner was at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in another matter. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is covered by a binding precedent of the same court, the court should follow it to ensure consistency and avoid multiplicity of litigation.
The High Court allowed the application for speaking to the minutes of the order. The Court directed that the necessary corrections should be carried out in the original order and the updated order uploaded on the website. The reasoning was based on the submission by the revenue that the assessment was faceless, necessitating the change in the designation of the Assessing Officer. The application for speaking to the minutes was disposed of. No other issues were decided on merits as this was a procedural correction.
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 in all the respective petitions. The Court also set aside any consequential notices or orders. The High Court stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation, as per the precedent set in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.*. The Court clarified that the petitioners are at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arises in other matters, indicating that the decision was limited to the specific issue addressed by the cited precedent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated 23rd May 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the impugned order dated 25th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, and the notices dated 28th June 2021 & 25th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. The court's decision was based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue that the issue was covered by the Bombay High Court's judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. The court explicitly stated that the petition was disposed of only on the issue of limitation. It also noted that the petitioner may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in another matter. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the sanction accorded by the PCIT for the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 was invalid. The Court reasoned that since the assessment year was 2018-2019 and the impugned order and notice were issued on April 7, 2022, they were issued beyond a period of three years. In such cases, the sanctioning authority must be the PCCIT, as stipulated under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151, which was inserted with effect from April 1, 2023, was not applicable to the present case. Following its own precedent in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited, the Court found the sanction to be invalid. Consequently, the impugned order dated April 7, 2022, under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated April 7, 2022, under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping all rights and contentions open.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present petitions is covered by its recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and 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. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation, as per the precedent. It was also noted that the petitioners may raise other contentions independently if the need arises in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if reassessment proceedings are initiated in a manner that is found to be contrary to established legal principles, particularly concerning limitation as per a binding precedent, such proceedings will be invalidated.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present petitions is covered by its recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and 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. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The court noted that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation, as indicated by the reference to the *Godrej Industries Ltd.* judgment, which likely dealt with limitation aspects. The petitioners were granted liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a set of petitions raises issues already decided by a coordinate bench of the High Court, the subsequent petitions should follow that precedent, particularly concerning procedural validity.
The High Court held that the issue in all the writ petitions was covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 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. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation. It also clarified that petitioners could raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters, indicating that the decision was limited to the specific grounds argued and decided.
The High Court held that the notices dated March 20, 2015, and the order rejecting objections dated November 6, 2015, were quashed and set aside. The Court found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) did not demonstrate a "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, but rather only a "reason to suspect." The judgment emphasized that the reasons must be founded on the AO's satisfaction that income has escaped assessment, not just on receiving information from CIB or a desire to verify aspects. The Court distinguished the present case from Biju Patnaik by noting that in Biju Patnaik, the counter-affidavit and record supported the AO's application of mind and satisfaction. Here, the AO's stated reasons merely indicated a need to verify share transactions based on CIB information, without establishing escapement of income. The Court relied on its own previous decisions in Sun Tan Trading Co. Ltd., Darpan P. Chandaliya, and Nivi Trading Limited, which held that seeking more details or proposing verification cannot substitute for the formation of a belief that income has escaped assessment. Consequently, the rule issued on April 13, 2016, was made absolute.
The High Court held that the issue in the present petitions was covered by the judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and 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. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, and petitioners were at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the same court covers the issue, the subsequent petitions should follow that precedent, particularly concerning procedural aspects like limitation.
The High Court, in agreement with the submissions of both the petitioners and the revenue, held that the issue in these petitions was covered by the recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.* Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation, as implied by the reference to the *Godrej Industries* judgment which likely dealt with such grounds. The petitioners were granted liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the same court covers the issue, subsequent identical matters should follow that precedent, particularly concerning procedural or limitation-based challenges.
The High Court, in agreement with the submissions of both the petitioners and the revenue, held that the issue in these petitions was covered by the recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.* Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation, as implied by the reference to the *Godrej Industries* judgment which likely dealt with such grounds. The petitioners were granted liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior judgment of the same court covers the issue, subsequent identical matters should follow that precedent, particularly concerning procedural or limitation-based challenges.
The High Court held that the AAR's order suffered from legal infirmity and was quashed and set aside. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's analysis that for services to qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-Singapore DTAA (though the judgment later refers to India-UK DTAA in the context of the Petitioner's application), they must satisfy the 'make available' test. This test requires that the services rendered enable the recipient to apply the technology or skills independently after the contract ends. The Court found that the AAR's reasoning that SIPCL's close working and advice to Petitioner's employees constituted making services available was flawed, especially since the CCA continued to operate. If the services were truly 'made available', Petitioner would not need them year after year. The Court noted that the AAR had not dealt with the issue of Permanent Establishment. The Court declared that the transactions under the CCA were not technical in nature per Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA and thus not taxable in India. The Department was granted liberty to take steps regarding Article 7 of the DTAA, and the Court expressed no opinion on that aspect. The time taken in these proceedings was to be excluded for limitation purposes.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned notice. The court's decision was restricted solely to the point of limitation. The reasoning was that the impugned notice for Assessment Year 2014-2015 was issued after the amendment to the Finance Act on 01.04.2021, and crucially, it was based on the provisions that existed prior to this amendment. The ratio decidendi is that notices for reopening assessments, especially for older assessment years, must be issued in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of issuance, and if issued after a statutory amendment that alters the basis or period for such notices, they may be invalidated if not compliant with the amended provisions or transitional rules. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the notice.
The High Court held that the interest of Rs.36,88,866/- paid on borrowings was not allowable as a deduction. The Court found that the borrowed capital was invested in shares of the assessee's own group companies, from which no income was received, and there was no evidence to demonstrate how such investment was subservient to the assessee's business or how the borrowed funds were utilized for business purposes. The Court relied on the Apex Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, which held that Section 14A disallows expenditure incurred in relation to income not forming part of total income. The Court clarified that the dominant purpose test for investment in shares is not relevant; instead, the principle of apportionment of expenses applies. Since the dividend income from the two companies was not taxable, the expenditure incurred on interest paid on funds borrowed for investment in these shares was hit by Section 14A, as the dividend received did not form part of the total income. The substantial question of law was answered in the affirmative, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause 'C'. The Court found that the issue raised by the petitioner was no longer res integra. The revenue was unable to demonstrate from the record that the impugned notice was issued within the three-year period or that the amount of escaped assessment exceeded Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, the Court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated were time-barred under Section 149(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years for an escaped income less than Rs. 50,00,000/- are invalid. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the impugned notice and order.
The High Court held that the issue in the present petitions would be covered by the recent judgment in *Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors.* Consequently, the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in all the respective petitions were quashed and set aside. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this instance, limitation related to Section 148A/148 notices), the High Court will follow that precedent to quash the impugned orders and notices.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, following its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, limitation as implied by the disposal on that ground), the subsequent cases with similar facts and issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, following its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, limitation as implied by the disposal on that ground), the subsequent cases with similar facts and issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, following its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, limitation as implied by the disposal on that ground), the subsequent cases with similar facts and issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, following its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, limitation as implied by the disposal on that ground), the subsequent cases with similar facts and issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, following its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, limitation as implied by the disposal on that ground), the subsequent cases with similar facts and issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, following its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, limitation as implied by the disposal on that ground), the subsequent cases with similar facts and issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, following its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors., quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) and the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, implying that other contentions raised by the petitioners could be raised independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a binding precedent on a specific issue (in this case, limitation as implied by the disposal on that ground), the subsequent cases with similar facts and issues should follow that precedent.
The High Court held that the issue in all the writ petitions was covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 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. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation. It also clarified that petitioners could raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters, indicating that the decision was limited to the specific grounds argued and decided.
The High Court held that the issue in all the writ petitions was covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 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. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation. It also clarified that petitioners could raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters, indicating that the decision was limited to the specific grounds argued and decided.
The High Court held that the issue in all the writ petitions was covered by the judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 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. Any consequential notices or orders also stood quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of solely on the issue of limitation. It also clarified that petitioners could raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters, indicating that the decision was limited to the specific grounds argued and decided.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present writ petitions was covered by its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the 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. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, as per the reasoning in the Godrej Industries judgment. It further clarified that the petitioners were at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on a specific issue of law or fact concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings (particularly regarding limitation or procedural compliance under Sections 148A and 148), subsequent identical petitions should follow that precedent.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present writ petitions was covered by its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the 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. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, as per the reasoning in the Godrej Industries judgment. It further clarified that the petitioners were at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on a specific issue of law or fact concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings (particularly regarding limitation or procedural compliance under Sections 148A and 148), subsequent identical petitions should follow that precedent.
The Bombay High Court held that the issue in the present writ petitions was covered by its recent judgment in Godrej Industries Ltd. V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai and Ors. Consequently, the 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. Any consequential notices or orders were also quashed and set aside. The Court explicitly stated that the petitions were disposed of only on the issue of limitation, as per the reasoning in the Godrej Industries judgment. It further clarified that the petitioners were at liberty to raise other contentions independently if the need arose in other matters. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on a specific issue of law or fact concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings (particularly regarding limitation or procedural compliance under Sections 148A and 148), subsequent identical petitions should follow that precedent.
The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15, dated July 31, 2022, was barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, stipulated that no notice under Section 148 could be issued if it could not have been issued prior to the substitution of Section 149(1)(b) by the Finance Act, 2021. For AY 2014-15, the time limit under the unamended Section 149(1)(b) expired on March 31, 2021. Therefore, a notice issued on July 31, 2022, was beyond this permissible period. The Court also clarified that the fifth proviso to Section 149, which allows for exclusion of certain periods, could not save a notice that was already barred by the first proviso. The period that could be excluded was only from May 24, 2022 (date of show cause notice) to June 8, 2022 (date of assessee's reply). The subsequent extension granted by the Assessing Officer was not a period for which the assessee had sought time and thus not excludable. Consequently, the impugned notice was held to be bad in law. The Court did not delve into the other grounds of challenge as the petition succeeded on the preliminary issue of limitation.
The High Court found that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) dated December 14, 2023, was not perverse or erroneous. However, acknowledging the principle that condonation powers are meant to achieve substantial justice and that refusing condonation can defeat the cause of justice, the Court decided to grant the petitioner an opportunity to present their case more fully. The Court emphasized that refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious matter being dismissed prematurely, whereas condoning delay allows for a decision on merits. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to file a further affidavit explaining the delay and establishing genuine hardship within one week of the order's upload. The Commissioner was then directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay and pass a final order on merits after hearing the petitioner, with at least three working days' notice.
The High Court held that the petition was covered by the judgment of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notices dated 20th May 2022, 28th June 2021, and 18th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, were also quashed and set aside. All other rights and contentions raised in the petition were kept open. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is squarely covered by a binding precedent of the High Court, the impugned proceedings should be quashed based on that precedent.
The High Court held that the issue of improper sanction, as raised by the petitioner, was squarely covered by its prior decision in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others. In that precedent, for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the Court had ruled that the sanction ought to have been obtained under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not under Section 151(i). Consequently, the sanction was deemed invalid. The Court further reasoned that if the sanction is invalid, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, which relies on such sanction, must also be invalid and quashed. Extending this logic, any assessment order passed subsequently, relying on an incorrect sanction, would also be liable to be quashed. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside all notices issued for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the assessment orders, and any consequential orders. The petition was disposed of, with liberty to the parties to raise other grounds in appropriate proceedings.
The High Court held that the issue of improper sanction, as decided in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, would squarely apply to the present petition concerning Assessment Year 2017-2018. In the cited case, the Court had ruled that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, sanction should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) and not Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the sanction was deemed invalid, rendering the notice issued based on it invalid. The Court further reasoned that if the notice is invalid, any subsequent assessment order passed relying on such an incorrect sanction would also have to be quashed. Therefore, all notices issued for Assessment Year 2017-2018 and the orders impugned in the petition were quashed and set aside, along with all consequential notices and orders.