Disposed

Accounts Receivables Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Successor to Gill Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Deptuy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6 (1) (1) Mumbai

Bombay HC10 May 2024WP/2535/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 income tax notice on jurisdictional grounds. Following the Division Bench view in J. D. Printer, the Court issued Rule and granted interim orders staying further proceedings pending final Supreme Court decision in Hexaware, with liberty to apply thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued; interim orders in terms of prayer clause (d) pending final disposal; liberty to apply after Supreme Court orders in Hexaware.

Accounts Receivables Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Successor… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

KAWREKIRANKALYAN Digitallysigned byKAWREKIRANKALYANDate:2024.12.2120:14:48+0530

¶2

559-WP-2535-2024 (OS).DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 OF 2024

¶6

Accounts Receivables Management Services India Pvt. Ltd. Successor To Gill Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus

¶7

Deptuy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6 (1) (1) Mumbai ...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b PDS Legal for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents.

¶10

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

¶11

DATE: 19 DECEMBER 2024

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board, on a praecipe as moved on behalf of the petitioner.

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

This Petition impugns a notice dated 21 April 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶16

Mr. Sriram Sridharan, 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

¶17

Page 1 of 3 19 December 2024

¶18

Kiran Kawre

¶19

559-WP-2535-2024 (OS).DOC

¶20

laid down by the Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others¹ .

¶21

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, 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 the 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.

¶22

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

¶23

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 test 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:-

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

(a) Rule. Respondents waive service.

¶26

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, there shall be interim orders in terms of prayer clause (d).

¶27