Desai Brothers Ltd.versusassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 Ors v. Itr 647 (Bom
High Court
23 Oct 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Desai Brothers Ltd.versusassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 Ors v. Itr 647 (Bom
Date of order
23 Oct 2023
Assessment year(s)
2017-2018, 2016-2017
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Desai Brothers Ltd.versusassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 7 Ors v. Itr 647 (Bom, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2023.10.2611:18:17+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11184 OF 2022
Desai Brothers Ltd.VersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax 7 Ors.
...Petitioner
...Respondents
----
Mr. Deepa Khare a/w Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar i/b Mint & Confreres forPetitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents.
----
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED : 23[rd] OCTOBER 2023
P.C. :
1This petition relates to A.Y.2017-2018. Counsel states that in thispetition the issue of improper sanction having been obtained has beenraised amongst other grounds. Counsel state that the issue of impropersanction has been decided by this court in Siemens Financial ServicesPrivate Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.1 whereinthe court has held that for A.Y. 2016-2017 the sanction should have beengiven under Section 151(ii) and not under Section 151(i) of the Income TaxAct 1961 (the Act). Consequently, the sanction is invalid. The court hasstated that in view of the invalid sanction, the notice issued itself will beinvalid and has to be quashed. We would also add, if the notice has tobe quashed, if there is an assessment order passed subsequently, those
1(2023) 457 ITR 647 (BOM)
assessment orders having been passed relying on an incorrect sanction, willalso have to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.
2Counsel further state that the findings in Siemens Financial ServicesPvt Ltd. (Supra) would squarely apply to this petition as well on the issue ofsanction. Therefore, impugned notice dated 31[st] May 2022 issued underSection 148A(b) of the Act and impugned order and impugned notice bothdated 29[th] July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act, are herebyquashed and set aside.
3 Petition disposed.
4 We clarify that all other grounds could be raised by the parties atappropriate stage in any other proceeding. appropriate stage in any other proceeding.
(NEELA GOKHALE, J.)
(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.