GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Blueblood Ventures Limited Vs Deuty Commissioner of Income Tax

LinkedIn


Court :
Delhi High Court

Brief :
It is the petitioner’s case that it owed monies to an entity, going by the name, Shridham Distributors Private Limited [in short 'SDPL']. According to the petitioner, the debt owed to SDPL was defrayed, by transferring Zero Coupon Optionally Convertible Debentures [in short ‘ZOCD’] of another entity, namely Devoted Construction Limited, amounting to Rs.21,37,00,000/-. This transaction, the petitioner avers, was completed on 28.03.2019.

Citation :
W.P.(C) 5460/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.05.2021

W.P.(C) 5460/2021
BLUEBLOOD VENTURES LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rohit Bohra, Advocate.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha
Kadiyan, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

1. Issue notice.

1.1. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, who appears on advance notice, on behalf of the respondent/revenue, accepts service.

2. Mr. Kumar says that, he does not wish to file a counter-affidavit in the matter, in view of the directions that we propose to pass.

2.1. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

3. Briefly, the backdrop in which the petitioner has approached this court by way of the instant writ petition is, as follows:

3.1. It is the petitioner’s case that it owed monies to an entity, going by the name, Shridham Distributors Private Limited [in short 'SDPL']. According to the petitioner, the debt owed to SDPL was defrayed, by transferring Zero Coupon Optionally Convertible Debentures [in short ‘ZOCD’] of another entity, namely Devoted Construction Limited, amounting to Rs.21,37,00,000/-. This transaction, the petitioner avers, was completed on 28.03.2019.

3.2. According to the petitioner, as on 01.04.2019, it owed nothing to SDPL. It is, therefore, the petitioner's case that, on 01.04.2019, a letter was addressed by the petitioner to SDPL to obtain balance confirmation.

3.3. The respondent/revenue, however, issued a garnishee notice, dated 07.02.2020, under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act']. Via this notice, the respondent/revenue called upon the petitioner, to remit the amount owed by it to SDPL.

3.4. The petitioner claims that, in response to the garnishee notice dated 07.02.2020, a communication dated 19.02.2020 was addressed to the respondent/revenue. It is the petitioner's case that, in the said communication, it, inter alia, indicated that as on 01.04.2019 nothing was owed by it to SDPL.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 01 June 2021
Published in LAW
Views : 9
downloaded 4 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags