Known As Hpl Socomec Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1) & Ors
High Court
07 Mar 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Known As Hpl Socomec Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1) & Ors
Date of order
07 Mar 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Known As Hpl Socomec Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10(1) & Ors, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Decision: Needless to add, the rights and contentions of both the sides will remain open, in the event the revenue triggers reassessment proceedings.” 3.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
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
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5179/2023
HPL ELECTRIC AND POWER LIMITED (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS HPL SOCOMEC PVT. LTD.) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ved Jain and Mr.Nischay Kantoor, Advs. Through: Mr.Ved Jain and Mr.Nischay Kantoor, Advs.
Versus
%
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Sr.SC with Mr.Shivendra Singh, Jr.SC, Mr.Puneett Singhal, Jr.SC and Mr.Chandan Kumar, Adv for I.T.Dept.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R
07.03.2024
1.Learned counsels for parties are ad idem that the challenge raised in this writ petition stands concluded in favour of the writ petitioner in light of the decision rendered by the Court in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024 SCC OnLine Del 330].
2.We consequently, allow the present writ petition and quash the impugned notices and order dated 30 June 2021, 27 May 2022 and 30 July 2022, subject to liberty reserved as per paragraph Nos. 28 to 30 of Twylight Infrastructure, and which read as under:
“28. Before us, the counsel for the revenue continue to hold this position. The only liberty that they seek is that if, based on the judgment in Ganesh Dass Khanna, the impugned orders and
notices are set aside, liberty be given to the revenue to commence reassessment proceedings afresh.
29. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned notices and orders in each of the above-captioned writ petitions are quashed on the ground that there is no approval of the specified authority, as indicated in Section 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law.
30. Needless to add, the rights and contentions of both the sides will remain open, in the event the revenue triggers reassessment proceedings.”
3.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
MARCH 7, 2024/MJ
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, 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.