TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court dismisses appeal challenging Income Tax Act order due to lack of jurisdiction.</h1> <h3>INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS Versus UNION OF INDIA, DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 17 (1), ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), V KRISHNASWAMY, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)</h3> The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and consequential re-assessment for the year ... - Issues involved: Challenge to order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and consequential re-assessment for the year 2001-02.The appellant, a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, sought to set aside an order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and the consequential re-assessment for the year 2001-02. The appellant claimed to be a separate legal entity from another respondent Society and raised concerns about the impact of the income tax proceedings on a pending civil suit. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the appellant's legal status as a separate entity did not necessitate examination of the order against the other Society. The appellant appealed this decision, expressing apprehension that the income tax findings could prejudice their interests in the civil suit.The High Court noted that the orders in question were passed in Mumbai concerning a respondent based in Mumbai, thus the High Court of Karnataka lacked territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Additionally, the Court emphasized that if the appellant is indeed a distinct entity from the other respondent Society, the orders pertaining to the latter would not bind the appellant. The Court highlighted that the civil court would not be unduly influenced by the income tax authorities' findings, especially since the matter was already before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.
TaxTMI 
