Case Law Details
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant ruling in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc vs. CIT. The court quashed an order passed by an officer on the grounds of lacking jurisdiction. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case and its implications.
Detailed Analysis: The case revolved around the challenge laid by the petitioner against an order dated November 28, 2022, passed under Section 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as notices dated June 10, 2022, and September 22, 2022, issued under Section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act. Additionally, an order dated November 28, 2022, passed under Section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act, along with a demand notice of the same date under Section 156 of the Act were also under scrutiny.
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Porus Kaka, argued that the order was fundamentally flawed in terms of jurisdiction. Specifically, it was contended that jurisdiction had already been exercised by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai, in relation to the transaction in question. This transaction pertained to a Share Purchase Agreement dated July 6, 2021, where the petitioner acquired a 74.9% equity stake in Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. from two Singapore-based companies.
The petitioner further asserted that all necessary statutory approvals, including those from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Competition Commission of India (CCI), had been obtained before and after the transaction. To substantiate the claim of jurisdiction in Mumbai, the petitioner referred to specific documents in the case file.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
