Skip to main content

Reassessment Notice on Non-Existing Company is not legally Tenable

Cause Title : Pranesh Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors, WPA 2476 of 2023, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 10.02.2023

Corum : Md. Nizamuddin, J.

Citied: 

Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, SCC OnLine Guj 6462, 2016

Background

The petitioner challenged the impugned notice dated June 23, 2021 relating to assessment year 2014-15 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a transferor company on the grounds that the impugned notice has been issued in the name of the company which has already been amalgamated in.2020 and that the department has been intimated about this amalgamation which is matters of record and such notice in the name of a non-existing company is not tenable in the eye of law.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the impugned notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act have been issued against the original assessee on 21.01.2011 to reopen the assessment for the Assessment year 2009-10. The petitioners-original was amalgamated with Takshasila Gruh Nirman (Subsequently named as Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd) with effect from 01.04.2010. Under the circumstances, when the impugned notices are issued against the original assessee-amalgamating Company on 21.01.2011, it can be said that the same has been issued against the non- existent Company. It cannot be disputed that once the scheme for amalgamation has been sanctioned by the Court with effect from 01.04.2010, from that date amalgamating Company would not be in existence. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices, which are issued against the non-existent Company, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the case of Khurana Engineering Ltd., the Division Bench of the High Court had under similar circumstances had held that in such a situations the assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the transferee Company taking into account the income of both the transferor and transferee Company.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more