2 days left — Registration closes 2026-10-31.
CLATcoach · Current Affairs
Legal Updates
Judgments · Amendments · Notifications
Judgment

Bombay HC quashes income-tax reassessment of Grasim Industries over Vodafone Idea rights shares

Bombay High Court1 min readPublished
Illustration: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court quashed a notice reopening Grasim Industries Limited's income-tax assessment for 2020-21 over its subscription to over 230 crore rights equity shares of Vodafone Idea Limited at Rs. 12.50 per share. The tax department had treated the difference between that price and a computed fair market value of Rs. 13.925 per share, about Rs. 329 crore, as income escaping assessment under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and issued a show-cause notice under Section 148A(1), followed by an order under Section 148A(3) and a notice under Section 148 to reopen the assessment. A Division Bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Farhan P. Dubash held, first, that the show-cause notice itself must be accompanied by the information suggesting escapement and must be issued within the limitation period that Section 149(2)(b) separately prescribes for show-cause notices; issuing the reassessment notice within time cannot cure a defective show-cause notice.

Second, on merits, the Court held that Section 56(2)(x), which taxes receipt of property for inadequate consideration, could not be invoked merely because rights shares were allotted below a computed fair value, where the petitioner's percentage shareholding stayed unchanged and no disproportionate benefit to it was shown. Both findings led the Court to set aside the reassessment notices.

Quick check
In Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, on what ground besides limitation did the Bombay High Court quash the reassessment notice?
  1. The Assessing Officer lacked territorial jurisdiction over the company
  2. Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act could not be invoked on the facts, since the company's shareholding percentage in Vodafone Idea remained unchanged and no disproportionate benefit was shown
  3. The notice was issued in a language other than English
  4. The company had already paid the full demanded tax amount
Show the answer ↓

Answer: B. The Court held that Section 56(2)(x), which covers receipt of property for inadequate consideration, did not apply to this rights-share allotment because the shareholding percentage was unaffected and no disproportionate benefit to the company was established.

Source document

Issued by Bombay High Court. If this summary and the source differ, the source is right — tell us and we will correct it.

Revising the month? All 178 legal updates from October 2026 →