Home ›

Search Results For: Writ jurisdiction

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: April 9, 2021 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 24, 2021 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Article 226/ s. 147: (i) A Writ Petition can be filed in the Bombay High Court against an order passed in Delhi if the assessee is based in Mumbai. The litigant has the right to go to ‘a Court’ where part of cause of action arises. (ii) A s. 148 notice & s. 147 reassessment order passed against an amalgamated (non-existing) company is without jurisdiction. The defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings is of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292B (All imp judgements referred)

The consequence of approved scheme of amalgamation was that amalgamating company had ceased to exist and on its ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person against whom assessment proceeding can be initiated. In said case before notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 26.9.2013, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved by the high court with effect from 1.4.2012. It has been observed that assessment order passed for the assessment year 2012-13 in the name of non-existing entity is a substantive illegality and would not be procedural violation of Section 292 (b) of the Act. The Supreme Court in its aforesaid decision, has quoted an extract from its decision in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT8. The Supreme Court has also referred to decision of Delhi high court in the case of CIT Vs. Spice Enfotainment Ltd.9and observed that in its decision Delhi high court had held that assessment order passed against non-existing company would be void. Such defect cannot be treated as procedural defect and mere participation of appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking provisions under section 292B

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 23, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Writ Petition for non-grant of refund: Though an order refusing to issue refund is not an appeallable order u/s 246A, it is subject to revision u/s 264. As the alternate remedy of revision is available, the Writ is not maintainable (Larsen & Toubro 326 ITR 514 (Bom) referred)

If one contrasts section 264 of the Act with section 246A of the Act which provides for appeal, it would be noticed that unlike section 246A of the Act which specifies sections of the Act from which an appeal would lie, section 264 of the Act provides for revision from `any order’ under the Act. This is another indication that the Commissioner of Income Tax has very wide powers to correct any order passed by an officer subordinate to him

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 17, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Art 226: If an assessee obtains an order from the Court that the Dept should refund the seized amount but does not take steps to enforce the order beyond the period of limitation, he is guilty of laches and negligence. He is not entitled to file another Writ for enforcement of the earlier order. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the High Court

This Court is not obliged to entertain belated and stale claims. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to confer benefit or enable litigants who sleep over their rights to derive an advantage for themselves. The writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary and if people like the petitioner, who is a businessman and prudent enough to know as to how monies, allegedly retained illegally, have to be recovered promptly and expeditiously. He does nothing despite a favourable order from this Court for more than a decade. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in our discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is extraordinary as well. It is not meant to get over the bar prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 for bringing a suit either. This indirect and oblique way of seeking a discretionary relief has to be discouraged

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 14, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision (show-cause notice): A Writ Petition to challenge a s. 263 notice is maintainable if the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction and if the notice is clearly barred by law. As per Alagendran Finance 162 Taxman 465 (SC), the two year limitation period stipulated u/s 263(2) runs from the date of the original assessment and not from the date of reassessment when the s. 263 notice deals with issues which are not subject matter of reassessment proceedings (MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) & Malabar Industrial Co 243 ITR 83 (SC) distinguished)

When a notice under Section 263 raises new issues, which are not subject matter of the re-assessment proceedings, then the two year period contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 263 would begin to run from the date of assessment and not from the date of re-assessment. In other words, the ratio laid down in Alagendran Finance 162 Taxman 465 (SC), particularly as elucidated in Paragraph 15 of the Alagendran Finance case, is to the effect that the two year limitation period stipulated under Section 263(2) will run from the date of assessment only and not from the date of reassessment when the Section 263 notice does not deal with the same subject as in assessment and when it deals with other issues which are not subject matter of reassessment proceedings

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: December 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: A Writ Petition to challenge the issue of a reopening notice u/s 148 is maintainable as per the law laid down in Calcutta Discount 41 ITR 191 (SC). The law laid down in Chhabil Dass Agarwal 357 ITR 357 (SC) deals with the maintainability of a Writ to challenge the reassessment order and does not apply to a challenge to the reassessment notice

The High Courts dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the assessee challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons which were recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Courts as not maintainable. The aforesaid view taken is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. Incom Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta & Anr. [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)]

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Writ Petition: A Writ Petition filed little after four months of receipt of impugned order suffers from “delay”. If the Writ Petition does not explain the reasons for the “delay”, it is liable to be dismissed

We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed on 4th December, 2015, received by the petitioner on 28th December, 2015. This petition has been filed on 29th April, 2016. The petition states that according to the petitioner, there is no delay in filing the petition. However, if this Court is of the view that there is a delay and delay may be condoned. However, no reasons with particulars are specified in the petition. In view of the fact that the petition itself does not explain the reason for the delay, the petition is liable to be dismissed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(1): The ITAT has no jurisdiction to grant a stay of prosecution proceedings as such proceedings are not directly & substantially flowing from the orders impugned before it

once it is accepted that proceedings for prosecution are independent of assessment and penalty, and the Tribunal is neither the appellate nor the revisional authority in a case where prosecution is launched, the mere fact that the decision in the appeal may have an impact on the prosecution, in our considered opinion, cannot be used to read into the expressions “pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit” or “any proceedings relating to an appeal”, a power in the Tribunal to direct that prosecution or a show cause notice shall be kept in abeyance. There is another aspect of the case, namely, if such a power, as has been canvassed by the assessee, were available to the Tribunal, prosecution would have to await the final outcome of proceedings up to the Supreme Court

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92B(1): If assessee contends that it has not entered into an "international transaction" with an AE, the TPO has to counter that by furnishing relevant information. Failure to do so can be challenged by a Writ Petition

When the petitioner no.1 replied to the said notice by its letter dated 29th April, 2015, the concerned respondent authority ought to have given a reply by supplying such relevant materials with which it come to a conclusion that the petitioner no.1 was an “associated enterprise” of PricewaterhouseCoopers Services BV. The reason why furnishing of such relevant materials were singularly important is that if the petitioner no.1 was not an “associated enterprise” of PricewaterhouseCoopers Services BV, there cannot be any computation of income from “international transaction” having regard to arm’s length price as envisaged under section 92 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: June 18, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: A writ petition is not like an appeal where the assessee has a statutory right to require the Court to entertain the challenge. A writ will be maintained only if the notice is clearly without jurisdiction & not otherwise

We would exercise our writ jurisdiction to interdict a proceeding under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment only when the same is clearly without jurisdiction and not otherwise as a matter of self restraint. We are …

Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »