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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Reopening under Section 148 over alleged excessive share premium quashed as reasons were inadequate and copied</h1> <h3>Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Godrej Projects Development Pvt Ltd. Versus Union of India and Ors.</h3> Bombay HC held that reasons recorded for reopening assessments under Section 148-relating to alleged excessive share premium-were similar to those in a ... Validity of reopening of assessment - reasons given for proposed reopening - excessive share premium - HELD THAT:- Reasons given for proposed reopening under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in these petitions are almost similar to the reasons recorded in[2024 (2) TMI 166 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], therefore, the view expressed by this Court in that matter will squarely apply to these petitions as well. The counsels for respondents do not dispute this fact. Therefore, all notices and orders impugned in these petitions are quashed and set aside. The petitions challenge notices/orders issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that the 'reasons given for proposed reopening under Section 148' in these matters are 'almost similar' to those in Godrej Projects Development Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Writ Petition No. 804 of 2015 (dated 1 February 2024), and that the legal view expressed in that decision 'will squarely apply to these petitions as well.' The revenue did not dispute this similarity. Applying that precedent, the court held that the impugned notices and orders must be 'quashed and set aside,' and likewise quashed all consequential notices, assessment orders and related consequential orders. The petitions were accordingly disposed.