Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Hcp Petrochem Pvt. Ltd on 12 February, 2025 cites

Sky Light Hospitality Llp vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 April, 2018

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:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Mahesh Damji Lapasia vs Income Tax Officer Ward Kalyan And Ors on 11 April, 2022

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 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 :
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - N R Borkar - Full Document

Jcit, Ghaziabad vs M/S. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., Noida on 12 March, 2018

CIT [ This judgment has also been referred to as Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del)]. Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the assessing officer was informed about amalgamation but the assessment order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company. In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of assessment order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was invalid. This was not a case wherein notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of non-existing person and hence void and illegal."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 42 - Cited by 112 - Full Document
1   2 Next