2021 (7) TMI 1272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31st March, 2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent-PCIT, Delhi-7 for passing a reasoned order within six weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on merits of the controversy. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent, it shall be open to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if permissible.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agrawal, Advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in Vijay Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-III, (2016) 386 ITR 643, M/s Epcos Electronic Components SA Vs. Union of India, WP(C) 10417/2018 dated 10th July, 2019 and judgment of the Supreme Court in Union Of India And Others vs Kamlakshi Finance Corporation, AIR 1992 SC 711. 5. Issue notice. Mr. Sunil Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent, accepts notice. He submits that the matter pertains to the period during which Dividend Distribution Tax regime under Section 115-O was prevalent. Under this system, the tax on distributed profits was to be borne by the Company distributing the dividends, and subsequently the dividends received by shareholders post payment of Dividend Distribution Tax by the Company was statutorily exempt fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o take a decision on filing of appeal, if any, against the said judgment. As such, it cannot be said that the Department has accepted or acquiesced in the judgment of ITAT on the above issues on merit, and the legal position of the questions involved is not yet settled. Hence a remedy under Section 264, as requested, is pre-mature. 4. As such, without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, I, in view of the above facts and legal position, decline to entertain this petition under section 264 of the Act, and to intervene for revising the assessment order for the captioned year passed by Assessing Officer on 19.12.2018 accepting the returned income." 7. Consequently, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that the learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X