Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeDirect TaxDelhi High Court Quashes S. 148 Notice Against Goibibo Group Citing Supreme...

Delhi High Court Quashes S. 148 Notice Against Goibibo Group Citing Supreme Court’s Decision In Rajeev Bansal Case

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a major relief to Goibibo, the Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, quashed a Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal.

The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the Finance Act, 2021 ((2021) 432 ITR (Stat) 52) substituted the old regime for reassessment with a new regime. The first provision to section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. 

The petitioner has challenged the reassessment action initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-2016. The petitioner has challenged the order referable to Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and the consequential notice under Section 148 which came to be issued on the same date.

The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal observed that once the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) is read with Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, then all the notices issued between April 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation.

The court while allowing the writ petition held that the reassessment action for AY 2015-16 would not sustain. The order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and consequential notice referable to Section 148 of even date were quashed.

Case Details

Case Title: IBIBO GROUP PRIVATE LIMITED Versus ACIT

Case No.: W.P.(C) 17639/2022

Date: 13.12.2024

Counsel For Petitioner: Salil Kapoor, Sumit Lalchandani, Salil Kapoor, Tarun Chanana, Ananya Kapoor, Utkarsa Gupta, Shivam Yadav

Counsel For Respondent: Sanjay Kumar

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

DGFT To Launch Central Processing Dept. for Faceless, Jurisdiction-Free Trade Applications By 2 October 2026

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is establishing a Central Processing Department (CPD)...

Undisclosed Receipts in ST-3 Return Justify Extended Service Tax Demand: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a service tax...

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...

Adjudicating Authority Ignored Remand Directions, Reissued ‘Copy-Paste’ Order: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand 

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

More like this

DGFT To Launch Central Processing Dept. for Faceless, Jurisdiction-Free Trade Applications By 2 October 2026

The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is establishing a Central Processing Department (CPD)...

Undisclosed Receipts in ST-3 Return Justify Extended Service Tax Demand: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld a service tax...

Importer’s Consent to Enhanced Customs Value Doesn’t Bar Appeal; Valuation Must Follow Statutory Procedure: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that...