- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Madras High Court grants relief to Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings against IT officer’s order
Madras High Court grants relief to Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings against IT officer’s order
Directs the department to provide ample opportunity to the petitioner to present supporting documents
The Madras High Court has ruled in favor of Shapoorji Pallonji Solar Holdings Private Limited by highlighting that the income tax officer made an error by issuing an order without considering the adjournment request of the petitioner.
The petitioner, Shapoorji Pallonji, appealed before the income tax officer challenging the order passed by the assessing officer (AO) disallowing various expenses in his assessment order. On 10 May, the petitioner received a notice directing it to furnish the written submissions along with supporting documents electronically on or before 17 May for consideration of his appeal.
On 16 May, Shapoorji Pallonji made an adjournment request through the e-filing portal of the department. It sought 15-20 days’ time for submitting certain documents. However, the impugned order was passed on 25 May, without considering its request.
The single-judge bench of Justice S. Sounthar noted that the petitioner submitted a screenshot as evidence, proving its request for additional time to collect documents in support of its appeal. The department should have considered that.
The judge rejected the IT officer’s submission that the petitioner’s request was not brought to the attention of the department. He held that since the order was issued without providing opportunity to the petitioner to present the documents supporting its appeal, it lacked proper consideration.
The Court, therefore, remanded the case back to the IT officer for re-evaluation. It instructed the department to provide the petitioner ample opportunity to submit the required documents.