Disposed

Royal Engineering Works v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1) and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Nov 2024WP/16059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, relying on Hexaware Technologies. The court followed its earlier J. D. Printer decision, granted interim relief and liberty to apply after the Supreme Court's final decision in Hexaware.

What the court decided

AI extract

Royal Engineering Works vs Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1) and Ors. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

57-WP-16059-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 16059 OF 2024

¶5

Royal Engineering Works ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward- 28(2)(1) Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms. Aanchal Vyas i/b Dharan Gandhi for the Petitioner. Mr. Arjun Gupta for the Respondent.

¶7

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

¶8

DATE : 26 NOVEMBER 2024

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

This Petition impugns a notice dated 27 August 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶12

Ms. Aanchal Vyas, 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 & Others 1.

¶13

Mr. Arjun Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Respondents would not dispute such contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. He,

¶14

(2024) 464 ITR 430

Page 1 of 2

Mayur Adane

57-WP-16059-2024.doc

however, submitted that the view taken by this Court in M/s. J. D. Printer 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 interim orders in terms of prayer clause (d).

¶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.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶26

2 Writ Petition No. 12187 of 2024

¶27

Page 2 of 2

¶28

Mayur Adane

Royal Engineering Works v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Royal Engineering Works v. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(2)(1) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Manisha Viraj Rajpurkar vs Income Tax Officer Ward 34(2)(1), Mumbai

Arkk Builders and Developers (2019 20) vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai

Arkk Builders and Developers (2016 17) vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(1), Mumbai

Balaji Landmarks Llp, Erstwhile, Balaji Landmarks Private Limited vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Cbdt) and Ors.

Heriminio India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Tlg India Private Limited vs Centralised Processing Centre through the Commissioner of Income Tax