Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

May 2026

A. Recovery of demand of predecessor company — High Court held that recovery of old demand without assessment order — Unsustainable; B. Power of High Court under Article 226(2) — Territorial jurisdiction of High Court — Cause of action — Assessee successor company post amalgamation — Recovery notice issued upon the assessee in respect of the outstanding demand of the predecessor company — Notice issued in the name of the predecessor company by the AO in Delhi — Transfer of jurisdiction from Delhi to Pune u/s. 127 vide order dated 13/12/2023 — Office of the AO in Delhi — Functus officio — Amendment in Constitution – Place of cause of action determinative — Part cause of action in Pune — Bombay High Court has jurisdiction in the petition filed by the assessee.

By Keshav Bhujle | Ritu Punjabi, Advocates
Reading Time 7 mins

10. Capgemini Technology Services India Limited v. DCIT:

TS-455-HC-2026(BOM):

A. Ys. 2001-02 to 2003-04: Date of order 24/03/2026:

S. 127 and 220 of ITA 1961 and Article 226(2) of the Constitution

A. Recovery of demand of predecessor company — High Court held that recovery of old demand without assessment order — Unsustainable;

B. Power of High Court under Article 226(2) — Territorial jurisdiction of High Court — Cause of action — Assessee successor company post amalgamation — Recovery notice issued upon the assessee in respect of the outstanding demand of the predecessor company — Notice issued in the name of the predecessor company by the AO in Delhi — Transfer of jurisdiction from Delhi to Pune u/s. 127 vide order dated 13/12/2023 — Office of the AO in Delhi — Functus officio — Amendment in Constitution – Place of cause of action determinative — Part cause of action in Pune — Bombay High Court has jurisdiction in the petition filed by the assessee.

The assessee is a company. The assessee company is the successor company following two successive amalgamations, that is:

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Re-assessment — Original assessment completed u/s. 143(3) —Re-opening of assessment on same set of facts — Issue considered and accepted by the assessing officer in the original assessment — Re-opening on same issue — Change of opinion — Impermissible —Order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 quashed.

S. 119(2)(b) – Intimation u/s. 143(1) – mistake in the original computation – Delay in filing application – In the absence of any intimation or order raising the demand, recovery of such non-existent demand cannot be made – The actual intimation has not been brought on record, nor any proof of service.