Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Having Address At D v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
High Court
10 Mar 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Having Address At D v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
Date of order
10 Mar 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Having Address At D v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, the High Court (2022) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In view of the above statement made by learned counsel forthe petitioner, the impugned notice issued in the present case, for thereasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in the aforesaidcases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3650/2022
Superfine Hotels Private Limited, having address at D-29,Ashiyana Apartment, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302004 through its Authorized Signatory Saumitra Singh.
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur having itsAddress at New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road,Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005.
For Petitioner : Mr. Jagpravesh Singh Advocate.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAINJudgment / Order
10/03/2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would submitthat the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra as it hasbeen put to an end by Division Bench of this Court in the decisionrendered on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions)where the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961have been found to be invalid and impermissible in law and quashed.
In view of the above statement made by learned counsel forthe petitioner, the impugned notice issued in the present case, for thereasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in the aforesaidcases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed.
(SAMEER JAIN),JMANOJ NARWANI /15
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
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.