2026 (3) TMI 1350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mumbai ("ITAT Special Bench") in ITA No. 7544/Mum/2011 for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. Brief facts of the case can be summarized thus: a) The Respondent-Assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2000-01 offering capital gains of Rs. 2,62,63,582/- arising from the sale of residential flats. The Respondent computed the gains as short-term capital gains ("STCG") in accordance with Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the I.T. Act") but applied the concessional tax rate of 20% applicable to long-term capital gains ("LTCG") under Section 112 of the I.T. Act, contending that the assets were held for more than 36 months. b) The Assessing Officer rejected this claim, holding that once the capital gain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Special Bench can be raised. In the alternative, he submitted that the order of the Special Bench which decided this issue, can be challenged in an appeal before this Court under section 260A of the I.T. Act as it is an order in appeal. He submitted that even otherwise, the tax effect involved in the case of the Respondent is less than the threshold limit as specified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for filing of appeal and therefore, neither an appeal can be filed nor a writ can be maintained. 4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argued that the Writ jurisdiction can be exercised in the present case despite the existence of an alternate remedy. As against the argument of the Respondent that since the Petitioner h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oration v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors. [(1998) 8 SCC 1], has laid down that the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights, or where there was been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or the vires of an Act is challenged. In the peculiar facts of the case, we do not agree with the submission of the Respondent that Petition is not maintainable as final Order dated 25.02.2025 has not been challenged. We are of the view that Regular Bench b....