In View Of The Judgment Of Apex Court In The Case Of Deputycommissioner Of Income-Tax v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.[1], In Our View, Thesubstantial Questions Of Law Do Not Arise
High Court
06 Sep 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
In View Of The Judgment Of Apex Court In The Case Of Deputycommissioner Of Income-Tax v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.[1], In Our View, Thesubstantial Questions Of Law Do Not Arise
Date of order
06 Sep 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In In View Of The Judgment Of Apex Court In The Case Of Deputycommissioner Of Income-Tax v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.[1], In Our View, Thesubstantial Questions Of Law Do Not Arise, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO. 2682 OF 2018
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1VersusTata Communications Ltd.
… Appellant
… Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant.Mr. Anil R. Wani a/w Ms. Supriya S. Devergudi i/b ANS Law Associates for Respondent.
P.C. :
CORAMK. R. SHRIRAM &DR. N. K. GOKHALE, JJ.DATED:6[th] September 2023
1.The following two substantial questions of law are
proposed :
(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in granting the stay of demand for more than 365 days in contravention to second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in granting the stay of demand for more than 365 days in contravention to second proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
(ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in not considering the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides that stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of 365 days, even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee ?the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in not considering the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides that stay of demand stands vacated after expiry of 365 days, even if delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to the assessee ?
Digitally signedGITALAXMIKRISHNAby GITALAXMIKRISHNAKOTAWADEKARKOTAWADEKARDate:2023.09.0819:37:31 +0545
2.In view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DeputyCommissioner of Income-tax v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.[1], in our view, thesubstantial questions of law do not arise.
3.Appeal dismissed.
(DR. N. K. GOKHALE, J.)
(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
1. [2021]126 taxmann.com 69 (SC).
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.
EaseValue