| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 6907 (SC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 261 Article 226
Where assessee preferred a SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [W.A. No. 2063 of 2019 and CMP No. 13893 of 2019, dt. 6-9-2019] : (2019) 418 ITR 576 (Mad) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6848 (Mad-HC), whereby the High Court held that there was not any error in the order of Single Judge with respect to deposit made during pendency of interim order, that it was only an iterim arrangement directed to be made pending the appeal, however, Single Judge had dismissed writ petition having given findings on merit both on fact and law, therefore, in such view of the matter, Single Judge was not right in going to the merit while granting liberty to file an appeal, accordingly, findings rendered on the nature of transaction and scope under section 115-O were set aside and the issues as to whether impugned order should be preceded by a procedure involving adjudication and requirement of violation of principles of natural justice were also left open to be decided in appeal. The Supreme Court directed the Registry to issue notice, returnable on 14-10-2019 and pending further consideration, the court suspended the time frame as indicated in the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court.
|
Appeal (Supreme Court) - Special leave petition - Writ - Appeal--Bye-back of shares--Applicability of section 115-O
Assessee preferred a SLP to appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court in Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [W.A. No. 2063 of 2019 and CMP No. 13893 of 2019, dt. 6-9-2019] : (2019) 418 ITR 576 (Mad) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6848 (Mad-HC), whereby the High court held that there was not any error in the order of Single Judge with respect to deposit made during pendency of interim order, that it was only an iterim arrangement directed to be made pending the appeal, however, Single Judge had dismissed writ petition having given findings on merit both on fact and law, therefore, in such view of the matter, Single Judge was not right in going to the merit while granting liberty to file an appeal, accordingly, findings rendered on the nature of transaction and scope under section 115-O were set aside and the issues as to whether impugned order should be preceded by a procedure involving adjudication and requirement of violation of principles of natural justice were also left open to be decided in appeal.Held: The Supreme Court directed the Registry to issue notice, returnable on 14-10-2019 and pending further consideration, the court suspended the time frame as indicated in the aforesaid part of the order of the High Court.
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|