Loading High Court cases…
112 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Gujarat High Court disposed of all the captioned writ petitions without adjudicating on the merits. This decision was made in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal. The High Court directed that all impugned notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of these writ petitions, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. These notices were to be construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for these notices. The Assessing Officers were then to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, thereafter, issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws were preserved. The High Court clarified that if any petition involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file a fresh petition.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, are substantive provisions that significantly widen the definition of a benami transaction compared to the unamended Act. Consequently, these provisions can only have prospective effect and cannot be applied to transactions that took place before November 1, 2016, the notified date for the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016. Since the transaction in question was dated December 14, 2011, the show cause notice, provisional attachment order, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were deemed null and void for being without jurisdiction. The Court found the revenue's reliance on the Madras High Court decision to be of little assistance. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, are substantive provisions that significantly widen the definition of a benami transaction compared to the unamended Act. Consequently, these provisions can only have prospective effect and cannot be applied to transactions that took place before November 1, 2016, the notified date for the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016. Since the transaction in question was dated December 14, 2011, the show cause notice, provisional attachment order, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were deemed null and void for being without jurisdiction. The Court found the revenue's reliance on the Madras High Court decision to be of little assistance. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, are substantive provisions that significantly widen the definition of a benami transaction compared to the unamended Act. Consequently, these provisions can only have prospective effect and cannot be applied to transactions that took place before November 1, 2016, the notified date for the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016. Since the transaction in question was dated December 14, 2011, the show cause notice, provisional attachment order, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were deemed null and void for being without jurisdiction. The Court found the revenue's reliance on the Madras High Court decision to be of little assistance. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, are substantive provisions that create an offence by widening the definition of a benami transaction. Consequently, these provisions cannot have retrospective effect. The Court found that these provisions significantly and substantially widened the definition compared to the unamended Act. As the amendment came into force on November 1, 2016, these provisions cannot be applied to transactions that occurred prior to this date. The transaction in question, dated December 14, 2011, predates the effective date. Therefore, the show cause notice dated December 30, 2019, the provisional attachment order dated December 31, 2019, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were declared null and void for being without jurisdiction. The Court set aside and quashed the impugned order. The petitions were allowed, and there was no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as amended, are substantive provisions that create an offense by widening the definition of a benami transaction. Consequently, these provisions cannot have retrospective effect. The Court found that these provisions were significantly broader than the definition of a benami transaction under the unamended 1988 Act. Therefore, they can only have prospective effect from the date the Amendment Act, 2016, was notified, which is November 1, 2016. Since the transaction in question occurred on December 14, 2011, prior to this date, the amended provisions could not be applied. The Court concluded that the show cause notice dated December 30, 2019, the provisional attachment order dated December 31, 2019, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were null and void for being without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as amended, are substantive provisions that create an offense by widening the definition of a benami transaction. Consequently, these provisions cannot have retrospective effect. The Court found that these provisions were significantly broader than the definition of a benami transaction under the unamended 1988 Act. Therefore, they can only have prospective effect from the date the Amendment Act, 2016, was notified, which is November 1, 2016. Since the transaction in question occurred on December 14, 2011, prior to this date, the amended provisions could not be applied. The Court concluded that the show cause notice dated December 30, 2019, the provisional attachment order dated December 31, 2019, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were null and void for being without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as amended, are substantive provisions that create an offense by widening the definition of a benami transaction. Consequently, these provisions cannot have retrospective effect. The Court found that these provisions were significantly broader than the definition of a benami transaction under the unamended 1988 Act. Therefore, they can only have prospective effect from the date the Amendment Act, 2016, was notified, which is November 1, 2016. Since the transaction in question occurred on December 14, 2011, prior to this date, the amended provisions could not be applied. The Court concluded that the show cause notice dated December 30, 2019, the provisional attachment order dated December 31, 2019, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were null and void for being without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as amended, are substantive provisions that create an offense by widening the definition of a benami transaction. Consequently, these provisions cannot have retrospective effect. The Court found that these provisions were significantly broader than the definition of a benami transaction under the unamended 1988 Act. Therefore, they can only have prospective effect from the date the Amendment Act, 2016, was notified, which is November 1, 2016. Since the transaction in question occurred on December 14, 2011, prior to this date, the amended provisions could not be applied. The Court concluded that the show cause notice dated December 30, 2019, the provisional attachment order dated December 31, 2019, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were null and void for being without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as amended, are substantive provisions that create an offense by widening the definition of a benami transaction. Consequently, these provisions cannot have retrospective effect. The Court found that these provisions were significantly broader than the definition of a benami transaction under the unamended 1988 Act. Therefore, they can only have prospective effect from the date the Amendment Act, 2016, was notified, which is November 1, 2016. Since the transaction in question occurred on December 14, 2011, prior to this date, the amended provisions could not be applied. The Court concluded that the show cause notice dated December 30, 2019, the provisional attachment order dated December 31, 2019, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were null and void for being without jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside and quashed. The Court allowed all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not issuing notices to both creditors under Section 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the loan transactions. The failure to do so vitiated the assessment process.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the assessment order had already been passed by the authority. Since the revenue's counsel did not oppose this submission, the Court accepted it. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition challenging an action becomes infructuous if the action has already been completed and the challenge is no longer maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as having become infructuous. No issues were left undecided.