Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 68 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Principle Commissioner Of Goods & ... vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd on 1 October, 2018

Anokhi Realty Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(3) on 7 August, 2023

9. The controversy in the present petition, is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under subsection (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated. The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Roquette India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 July, 2023

33. There is no doubt that MRPL amalgamated with MIPL and ceased to exist thereafter; this is an established fact and not in contention. The respondent has relied upon Spice and Maruti Suzuki (supra) to contend that the notice issued in the name of the amalgamating company is Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 void and illegal. The facts of present case, however, can be distinguished from the facts in Spice and Maruti Suzuki on the following bases.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - V M Pancholi - Full Document

M/S. Mando Automotive India Private ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 February, 2021

18. However, the facts of the present case are quite different. Despite the amalgamation with effect from 01.04.2013, the returns under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the petitioner in the name of the merged/transferor company, namely, Mando India Ltd, on 29.11.2013. Therefore, the reasoning adopted in the Judgement of the Delhi High Court and the reasoning adopted in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd case referred to supra cannot be applied to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 5 - C Saravanan - Full Document

The Mehsana Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 7 January, 2023

11.We are in agreement with the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) and in case of Gayatri Microns Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that now the notice has already been issued to the present petitioner-company under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years involved in the present group of petitions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

M/S Neo Structo Construction Pvt Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 June, 2022

11.We are in agreement with the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) and in case of Gayatri Microns Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that now the notice has already been issued to the present petitioner-company under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years involved in the present group of petitions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Adani Estate Management Private ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), ... on 20 June, 2023

9. The controversy in the present petition, is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under subsection (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated. The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - V M Pancholi - Full Document

Gayatri Microns Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 24 December, 2019

9. The controversy in the present petition, is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under sub- section (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated. The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 8 - H Devani - Full Document

M/S. Doosan Infracore India vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 March, 2021

It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. case referred to supra, the impugned order passed by the second respondent overruling the objections of the petitioner against the invocation of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for passing fresh assessment order under the provision of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed on merits.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Kunvarji Fincorp Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 January, 2023

9. The controversy in the present petition, is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 20:52:17 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/903/2022 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2023 undefined held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under sub- section (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated. The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - S G Gokani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next