Discrepancies in Section 148 Notice- incorrect allegations: HC Grant’s Stay

Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)

Introduction: The Delhi High Court’s recent judgment in the case of Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius vs ACIT (Assessment Year 2016-17) brings focus on discrepancies in Section 148 Notice of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court examined incorrect allegations, muddled facts, and apparent lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO). This article offers a comprehensive examination of the case, providing insights into the background, the detailed analysis, and conclusions drawn from the judgment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Case: The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, related to the remittance of monies to non-resident/foreign companies, and paying ₹1 lakh or more for acquiring shares. The allegations were found to be erroneous, leading to the writ petition.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.