Disposed

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.Ltd v. the Assessment Unit Income Tax Dept. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2024WP/11845/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a Section 148 income-tax reassessment notice on jurisdictional grounds relying on Hexaware Technologies. The court issued rule, stayed the Section 148 notice and related proceedings pending final disposal, and allowed parties to apply after the Supreme Court's decision in Hexaware.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued; stay of the Section 148 notice dated 28 February 2022 and proceedings arising under it until final disposal; liberty to apply after Supreme Court decision in Hexaware.

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.Ltd vs the Assessment Unit… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

34-WP-11845-2024 (C).DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11845 OF 2024

¶4

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd ...Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar i/b Atul K. Jasani for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶9

Date: 03 DECEMBER 2024.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

This Petition impugns a notice dated 28 February 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶13

Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer would not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, considering the principle of law as laid down by this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others¹ .

¶14

Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would not dispute such contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. He, however, submitted that the view taken by this Court in M/s. J. D. Printer

¶15

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶16

Mayur Adane

¶17

34-WP-11845-2024 (C).DOC

¶18

Pvt. Ltd., v/s. Income Tax Officer – 15(10(2) & Ors.² be followed in the present proceedings.

¶19

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

There are other issues which are raised on behalf of the petitioner in assailing the impugned notices / orders apart from the primary issue as raised on the basis of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra). Considering the view which the Court has taken in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra), we need to follow such orders, which would also govern the present proceedings. Hence, for the reasons as recorded in the orders passed by this Court in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra) and in regard to our observations on the proceedings involving the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), we pass the following order:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(a) Rule. Respondents waive service.

¶23

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, there shall be interin reliefs to the extent that there shall be stay to the notice under Section 148 dated 28 Feburary 2022 and any other proceeding arising under the said notice.

¶24

(c) Liberty to the parties to apply after appropriate orders are passed by the Supreme Court and/or final decision of the Supreme Court in Hexaware.

¶25

(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)

¶26

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶27

2 Writ Petition No.12187 of 2024

¶28

Mayur Adane

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.Ltd v. the Assessment Unit Income Tax Dept. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd.Ltd v. the Assessment Unit Income Tax Dept. National Faceless Assessment Centre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Assessment Unit Care of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Assessmnet Unit Care of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5

Gautam Sushil Gupta vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 3 1 Mumbai

Paras Associates LLP vs Income Tax Officer - WARD-41(2)(4)- Mumbai

Anita Bharat Vardhan vs Champalal K. Vardhan and 36 Ors.

Mahaveer Prathishthan vs the Commissioner of Exemption, Pune and Anr.