Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 53 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Sky Light Hospitality Llp vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 April, 2018

M/S. Samvardhan Motherson Innovative ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 6 February, 2025

Hence, while dismissing the special leave petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the Court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] on the other hand. It is of relevance to refer to Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

M/S. Samvardhan Motherson Innovative ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 6 February, 2025

Hence, while dismissing the special leave petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the Court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] on the other hand. It is of relevance to refer to Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Hcp Petrochem Pvt. Ltd on 12 February, 2025

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2025 at 21:35:11 High Court was that though the notice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity. Hence, while dismissing the special leave petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the Court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] on the other hand. It is of relevance to refer to Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Moonlight Equity Private Limited ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 January, 2025

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/02/2025 at 23:37:59 facts of the case. Those facts have been noted above. What had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the notice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity. Hence, while dismissing the special leave petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the Court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] on the other hand. It is of relevance to refer to Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

S S S Glass P.Ltd, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-22(1), New Delhi on 9 June, 2023

8. In view of above, we reach to a logical conclusion that the conversion of earlier entity i.e. S.S.S Glass Pvt. Ltd. into an LLP had taken place on 30.01.2015 was properly informed to the Assessing Officer by assessee at very first instance raising objection to the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, against a nonexistent entity and after acknowledging said objection the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame reassessment order on 05.08.2015 by observing in para 2 of assessment order that it is immaterial that the company does not exist as on the date and only for that reason legal proceeding shall not be dropped. These observations are against the ratio of the preposition rendered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sony Mobile Communication (supra) and earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Spice Enfotainment(supra) and Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra). It is pertinent to mention that the assessee in the paper book filed on 15.12.2022 as annexure 2 page no. 1 filed copy of Form 19 issued by Ministry of Corporate Affairs certifying that the Pvt. Ltd. company converted in to LLP w.e.f. 30.01.2015 and on receipt of objection dated 27.03.2015 the Assessing Officer has to take cognizance of said conversion of character of the entity but he failed to take proper recourse and action in this regard which is fatal to the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Btl Industries Ltd,New Delhi vs Dcit, Central Circle-Ii,, Faridabad on 20 August, 2025

30. From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 1471 in the special leave petition filed by Skylight Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to this conclusion that there was 22 ITA Nos.7430/Del/2019 & 3618 to 3620/Del/2018 only a clerical mistake within the meanins of Section 292-B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT\ 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd (Successor To ... vs Acit Circle- 4(2), New Delhi on 27 March, 2024

30. From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6- 4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] in the special leave petition filed by Skylight Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to this conclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaning of Section 292-B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Late Sh. Birdi Chand Through Legal Heir ... vs Ito, Ward-7(2), Jaipur, Jaipur on 9 April, 2024

6.5 It was pointed out that the above decision of the Delhi High Court came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2018] 92 taxman.com 93 (SC), which dismissed the special leave petition holding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanubhai Dhirubhai Patel Lr Of Late ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1)(1) ... on 14 February, 2022

6.5 It was pointed out that the above decision of the Delhi High Court came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2018] 92 Taxman.com 93 (SC), which dismissed the special leave petition holding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 11 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next