Case Law › High Court › Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd v....

Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 29, Delhi & Anr

High Court 24 Oct 2024 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · dhcdb

Parties

Date of order

24 Oct 2024

Assessment year(s)

2013-14

Outcome

Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral Circle 29, Delhi & Anr, the High Court (2024) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 6.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnednotice is set aside.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 148 case law →Section 149 case law →

$~126 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 10250/2024 & CM No.42034/2024 MERA BABA REALITY ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD......PetitionerThrough:Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Mr. UtkarshKumar Gupta, Advs.Through:Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Mr. UtkarshKumar Gupta, Advs. Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI & ANR......Respondents Through:Mr. Anurag Ojha, Mr. V.K. Saksena &Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R24.10.2024 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated24.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the assessment year2013-14. 2.It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice is beyond the period oflimitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. 3.Concededly, the issues involved in the present petition are covered bythe decisions of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors.:Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:4554-DB and The Pr. Commissioner ofIncome Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.: 2024:DHC:2629-DB. 4.The petitioner has also annexed a tabular statement drawn up inconformity with the said decisions indicating that the reopening of assessmentfor the AY 2013-14 is barred by limitation, along with the petition asAnnexure P-2. The said tabular statement is reproduced below: “RelevantAssessmentComputation ofComputationyearforinitiating06 yearsof 10 yearsproceedingsunderSection 153A of the Act2023-24-12022-23122021-22232020-21342019-20452018-19562017-18672016-1782015-1692014-1510Barred by time limitation2013-1411(beyondterminalpointof 10 years)” 5.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly concurs with theassessee’s contention that the impugned notice for AY 2013-14 is beyond theperiod as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act. 6.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnednotice is set aside. 7.Pending applications is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 24, 2024 ‘gsr’ SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA

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.