Search Results For: estoppel


Oricon Enterprises Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(42C)/ 50B: A transaction by which an undertaking is transferred in consideration of the allottment of shares is an "exchange" and not a "sale". The fact that the agreement refers to the parties as "seller" and "purchaser" is irrelevant. S. 2(42C)/ 50B apply only to "sale" and not to "exchange". Entire law on "estoppel" explained. As there is no estoppel against a statute, an assessee is entitled to raise the claim regarding non-taxability at any stage of the proceedings

In the present case the consideration was not money but equity shares and debentures and hence the transaction was not a “Sale” but an “Exchange” and consequently, the provisions of Section 50B of the I.T. Act, are not attracted. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. (365 ITR 258) where an undertaking was transferred under a Scheme of Arrangement to a company which allotted preference shares and bonds as consideration to the Transferor company. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Motor & General Stores (P) Ltd. (66 ITR 692), the jurisdictional High Court held that the provisions of section 50B were inapplicable to the transaction

Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 20, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 25, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: If the assessee responds to the S. 142(1)/ 143(2) notices, it means that he has submitted to the AO's jurisdiction and is estopped for filing a Writ Petition to challenge the same. The fact that the jurisdiction is challenged while participating in the proceedings is irrelevant

The petitioners have filed detailed information called for by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act and thus participated in the assessment proceedings. This having been done, it is not open for the petitioners to now contend that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and prohibit the Authorities from proceeding further with the impugned notice. This is particularly so as the question of jurisdiction has been raised by the petitioners before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings under the Act. In the present facts, the petitioners have participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The objections to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in support of the impugned notice during the assessment proceedings is to point out to him the reassessment proceedings are bad as the requirement of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act are not satisfied. It would be completely different scenario where the petitioners have not participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and object to exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer at the very threshold and not while participating in the reassessment proceedings. In such cases, it is not a case of a party seeking identical relief by two parallel modes. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer are subject to effective, efficacious alternative remedy under the Act

Milestone Tradelinks P.Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: A.Y 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An order of revision passed on a non-existing entity, even though the power of attorney and the adjournment and the reply to show cause notice was signed by the erstwhile company, is invalid. The Tribunal held that the case of estoppel relied on by the department cannot be applied to instant case as assessee did not behave in a notorious way to mislead the department. Taking cognizance of the intimation filed by the assessee to the jurisdictional AO that the company is not is existence, during the assessment proceedings, of the intervening assessment years, and there being no provision in law to intimate the CIT regarding the facts of merger, the ITAT held the order to be invalid.

In the Income Tax Act, there is no provision to communicate this fact to the Commissioner. The assessee has already informed the AO. We have extracted the copy of the letter written by the assessee. We have also made reference of the assessment order vide which the AO has taken cognizance of this fact while he issued notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. In the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench itself has observed that legally when a company amalgamates with another, it loses its identity and no proceedings can be taken in its earlier name. The Bench had taken a different view on account of notorious facts available in that case. No such circumstances are before us. Apart from above, we are of the view that even if the assessee gave consent for taking up the proceedings under section 263 against it, that would not infuse jurisdiction in the ld.Commissioner. In other words, this adjournment application, reply to show cause notice would not infuse jurisdiction to ld.Commissioner. Jurisdiction should be by virtue of operation of the Act and not by the consent of an assessee. A perusal of section 263 would indicate that before taking any action under section 263, the ld.Commissioner has to pursue record and record would include the communication made by the assessee to the AO on 23.7.2013 intimating about the fact of amalgamation

Top