Disposed

Atos Global Limited Liability Partnership v. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(1)

Bombay HC14 Oct 2024WP/4393/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 notice for Assessment Year 2019-2020 on jurisdictional grounds following the Hexaware decision. The court issued rule, granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), and left parties liberty to apply after the Supreme Court's final decision in Hexaware.

What did the court decide?

Rule issued with respondents waiving service; interim orders granted in terms of prayer clause (d) pending final disposal.

Atos Global Limited Liability Partnership vs Income Tax Officer… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904-WP-4393-2024.DOC

¶2

Ashvini Narwade

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4393 OF 2024

¶5

Atos Global Limited Liability Partnership

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Income Tax Officer Ward-42(2)(1) & Others

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/w. Mr. Aadnya Bhandari for the Petitioner. Ms. Mamta Omle for Respondents.

¶11

ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB KAKDE

¶12

Digitally signed by ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB KAKDE Date: 2024.10.17 16:14:07 +0530

¶13

_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 14^th OCTOBER, 2024

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

2 This Petition impugns a notice dated 21.04.2023 for Assessment Year 2019-2020, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, by Respondent No.1, who is the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

¶17

3 Mr. Gandhi, 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 .

¶18

4 Ms. Omle, the learned Counsel for the Respondent would not dispute such contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. She, however, submitted that the view taken by this Court in M/s. J. D. Printer Pvt. Ltd., v/s.

¶19

1 (2024) 464 ITR 430

¶20

Page 1 of 2 14^th October, 2024

¶21

904-WP-4393-2024.DOC

¶22

Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(2) & Ors.² be followed in the present proceedings.

¶23

5 We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that, for the reasons as recorded by us in M/s. J. D. Printer (supra) 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