Remanded

Bharat Capital and Holdings Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2022WP/204/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an order by the Income Tax Officer regarding objections against a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-application of mind. Matter remanded for consideration after granting a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12th August 2021 disposing of objections against notice under Section 148 set aside; matter remanded after personal hearing.

Bharat Capital and Holdings Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

921-wp-204-22.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by 1 / 2 MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2022.01.19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 11:34:30 +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 204 OF 2022

¶4

Bharat Capital & Holdings Ltd. ….Petitioner

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3) Mumbai & Anr…Respondents

¶7

----

¶8

Mr. Rohan Deshpande i/b Ms.Farzeen Khambatta for Petitioner
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents

¶9

 ----
 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
R.N. LADDHA, JJ
 DATED : 17th JANUARY 2022

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1After hearing the parties, we have satisfied that petitioner’s grievance
that there has been non application of mind by the officer who passed the
order on objections, cannot be faulted. The order dated 12th August 2021
disposing of petitioner’s objections against issue of notice under Section 148
of the Income Tax Act 1961 for A.Y.-2017-2018, is set aside. The matter is
remanded to respondent no.1, who shall once again consider the
submissions made by petitioner and grant personal hearing to petitioner
before passing the order on objections. The notice regarding the date and
time of personal hearing shall be given atleast 7 days in advance. The
objections to re-opening shall be disposed of by the concerned officer within
4 weeks of this order being uploaded.

¶12

2The assessment proceedings may thereafter be continued and
disposed in a further period of 8 weeks from the date of order on objections
is passed.

Meera Jadhav

921-wp-204-22.doc

2 / 2

3 We have not made any observations on the merits of the case.

¶17

4 Petition disposed.

¶18

(R. N. LADDHA, J.)

¶19

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶20

Meera Jadhav

Bharat Capital and Holdings Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Capital and Holdings Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(3), Mumbai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.H.Kelkar and Company Ltd. Vs Additional Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner and 3 Ors.

The Commissionr of Central Excise and Customs Raigad Commissinerate Vs M/S Reliance Industries Ltd.

The Pr. Commissioner of Incoem TAX-4 Vs Kruti Lalitkumar Jain

Macrotech Developoers Limited.(Successor to Palava Dwellers Pvt.Ltd) Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 7(3),MUMBIA and 2 Ors.

Girraj Kishor Agrawal Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle 8(3) and 2 Ors.

Kamlesh Rajnikant Shah Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX(CENTRAL)-4, Mumbai and 4 Ors.