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 Upholds Validity of Income Tax Notice for Private Limited Company</h1> <h3>GE India Industrial Private Limited, Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle - 3 (1) (2), Koramangala</h3> GE India Industrial Private Limited, Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle - 3 (1) (2), Koramangala - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notice dated 20-02-2017 issued under Section 210(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Obligation of the petitioner to pay advance tax for the period between 1-04-2016 and 20-03-2017.3. Applicability of judgments in MARSHALL SONS AND CO. (INDIA) LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI v. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Notice Dated 20-02-2017:The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged a notice dated 20-02-2017 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 210(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice demanded advance tax payment for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioner argued that due to a scheme of amalgamation effective from 1-04-2016, the company ceased to exist and thus was not liable to pay advance tax.2. Obligation to Pay Advance Tax:The petitioner contended that since the scheme of amalgamation was effective from 1-04-2016, the company was not in existence during the period in question and should not be liable for advance tax. However, the Tribunal approved the scheme on 20-03-2017, creating a period of contention between 1-04-2016 and 20-03-2017. The revenue argued that until the Tribunal's approval, the petitioner was still an independent entity and liable for advance tax under Sections 207, 208, and 211 of the Act.The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Act, particularly Sections 207, 208, 209, and 211, which outline the conditions and computation for advance tax payments. The court concluded that the petitioner was obliged to pay advance tax for the first three quarters (15th June, 15th September, and 15th December) of the assessment year 2017-18, as the Tribunal's approval on 20-03-2017 did not retroactively absolve the company of its tax obligations.3. Applicability of Judgments:The petitioner cited the judgments in MARSHALL SONS AND CO. (INDIA) LIMITED v. INCOME TAX OFFICER and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI v. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED to support their claim. The court distinguished these cases, noting that the scheme of amalgamation in MARSHALL SONS took effect from the date of sanctioning, and in MARUTI SUZUKI, the Supreme Court dealt with the loss of entity upon amalgamation.The court determined that the petitioner company lost its entity only upon the Tribunal's approval on 20-03-2017. Thus, the petitioner was liable to pay advance tax for the period between 1-04-2016 and 20-03-2017.Conclusion:The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned assessment order and the notice demanding Rs. 356,644,155. The writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the petitioner's obligation to pay the advance tax for the specified period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
