Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Jitendra Chandralal Navlani vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Jitendra Chandralal Navlani vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 148 notice issued to, and reassessment order passed on, a non-existing entity is without jurisdiction. A writ petition can be entertained despite the presence of alternate remedy

Normally we would not have entertained a petition as an alternative remedy to file an appeal is available to the petitioners. However, prima facie, the impugned notice has been issued in respect of a non existing entity as M/s. Addler Security Systems Pvt. Ltd., which stands dissolved, having been struck off the Rolls of the Registrar of Companies much before its issue. Consequently, the assessment has been framed also in respect of the non-existing entity. This defect in issuing a reopening notice to a non-existing company and framing an assessment consequent thereto is a issue which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assess the non-existing company. Thus, prima facie, both the impugned notice dated 24th March, 2015 and the Assessment Order dated 28th March, 2016, are without jurisdiction.

Related Posts:

  • Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd vs. IAC (Bombay High Court) Section 40(3) of the Act bringing to tax land and building which is not used for business purposes by companies in which public are not substantially interested to tax under the Wealth Tax Act and leaving out those land and buildings which are used for business purposes by companies in…
  • CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV (Bombay High Court) Apart from that, the Tribunal's order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We…
  • CIT vs. L&T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) Mere using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income would not in the absence of same being particularized, lead to imposition of penalty. It is only when the specified officer of the Revenue is satisfied that there has been concealment of…
  • S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) The reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information in the form of observations of ITAT is on sound footing and which constitutes a tangible material for the purpose of reopening as the assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act…
  • CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court) Thus two port-folios one for "Investment" and other for "Trading". Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short…
  • Arunkumar J. Muchhala vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Now, Appellant intends to say that he has not maintained books of accounts and therefore, those amounts can not be considered. When Appellant is doing business, then it was incumbent on him to maintain proper books and/ or books of account. It may be in any form. Therefore, if he…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    The argument that the AO has been careless in bringing to tax a particular amount which is chargeable to tax and that the Revenue should not be precluded from issuing notice u/s 148 overlooks the fact that power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order….
  2. Soignee R. Kothari vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    In the normal course of human conduct if a person has nothing to hide and serious allegations /questions are being raised about the funds a person would make available the documents which would put to rest all questions which seem to arise in the mind of the Authorities. The…
  3. Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) 

    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…
  4. CIT vs. Trend Electronics (Bombay High Court) 

    In issues such as this, i.e. where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. We also do not appreciate the stand of the revenue, that the respondent-assessee…
  5. Bayer Material Science Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax would take serious note of the above and after examining the facts, if necessary, take appropriate remedial action to ensure that an assessee is not made to suffer for no fault on its part. This is particularly so as almost the entire period…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*