Disposed

Gauri Vinayak Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Kalyan

Bombay HC22 Oct 2024WP/12889/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 income tax notice on jurisdictional grounds, relying on the Division Bench decision in Hexaware Technologies and the J. D. Printer orders. The Court followed its J. D. Printer orders and granted interim relief pending Supreme Court decision.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued; interim orders in terms of prayer clause (e) pending hearing and final disposal; liberty to apply after Supreme Court's decision in Hexaware.

Gauri Vinayak Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Assistant… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

909-WP-12889-2024 (C).DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 12889 OF 2024

¶4

Gauri Vinayak Builders And Developers Pvt Ltd

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 Kalyan ...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Mahaveer Jain a/w Shobhit Mishra, for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. Date: 09 DECEMBER 2024.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

This Petition impugns a notice dated 31 March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶13

Mr. Mahaveer Jain 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. Akhileshwar Sharma 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, PA

¶17

909-WP-12889-2024 (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 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 the said orders, which in our opinion 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