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>Court rules in favor of software company challenging tax notices, deeming them substantive illegality</h1> <h3>M/s eMUDHRA LTD. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 (1) (2), Bengaluru, The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1 (3) (2), Mumbai</h3> M/s eMUDHRA LTD. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 (1) (2), Bengaluru, The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - ... Issues:Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2011-12, overruling objections, and notice under Section 142(1) of the Act.Analysis:The petitioner, a software development company, filed income return for 2011-12. Scrutiny led to assessment under Section 143(3) by the second respondent. Subsequently, amalgamation occurred with another company. The notice under Section 148 challenged by the petitioner was considered beyond the limitation period and as a change of opinion without tangible material, citing the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. case judgment.The revenue argued that the department was unaware of the amalgamation during notice issuance. The court highlighted that the department was informed of the amalgamation previously. The revenue attempted to distinguish the Maruti Suzuki case by emphasizing the lack of communication regarding amalgamation in this scenario.The court carefully considered arguments from both sides. The petitioner's main contention was the issuance of notice to a non-existing company post-amalgamation. Documents indicated departmental knowledge of the amalgamation. The court dismissed the revenue's argument of ignorance due to lack of specific objections raised by the petitioner.The court referenced the Maruti Suzuki case, emphasizing that the notice issued to a non-existing entity was a substantive illegality, not a procedural defect under Section 292-B of the Act. The court ruled the defective notice against a non-existing company was not curable, leading to the quashing of the notices and overruling of objections.In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices dated 28/3/2018, 29/11/2018, and 11/12/2018 under the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
