TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice dated 28.03.2018 passed by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "Act"]. 2. Notice in this writ petition was issued on 20.12.2018, when an interim direction was issued, to the effect, that while reassessment proceedings could continue, no final order would be passed till the next date of hearing. 3. The record shows, that the interim direction was made absolute on 20.08.2019, during the pendency of the writ petition. Consequently, the interlocutory application i.e., CM No.53887/2018 was disposed of. 4. Mr Sachit Jolly, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that two issues were raised by the assessing officer, which led to the issuance of the impugned notice. These issues are set forth i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s on higher amount of loan." 5. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the judgment dated 20.08.2019 rendered by the coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11541/2017, titled Vedanta Ltd. (Successor of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited) v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-26(1), New Delhi covers the said issue against the respondent. 5.1 To be noted, the said judgment concerned Assessment Year (AY) 2010-2011, while the instant matter relates to AY 2011-2012. 6. In these circumstances, we have queried the learned counsel for the parties, as to whether the aforementioned judgment was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. 6.1 Learned counsel for the parties say, that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipal prayer made in the OA is extracted hereafter: "a) for a sum of Rs. 45,37,696/- against Defendant Nos.1 to 6 jointly and severally with further interest @ 24.5% p.a. from the date of the suit/ application till realisation." 11. It is important to note, that the OA came to be registered in the Tribunal, after the summary suit filed by the Vijaya Bank [i.e., Suit No. 4093/1998] in the Bombay High Court was transferred to the Tribunal. 12. A perusal of the judgment would show, the case set up by the Vijaya Bank was that certain persons i.e., defendant nos. 7 to 25 (arrayed as parties in the OA) had wrongfully received amounts from it, based on forged and/or fabricated and/or fraudulently procured dividend warrants, purportedly, issued b....