Case LawHigh Court › Asian Paints Ltd.mumbai v. The Deputy Co...

Asian Paints Ltd.mumbai v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 08 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Asian Paints Ltd.mumbai v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
08 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Asian Paints Ltd.mumbai v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Decision: In view of the aforesaid statement made by the ( 2 ) learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.479 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.479 OF 2008 Asian Paints Ltd.Mumbai .. Petitioner Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 32, Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.S.E.Dastoor with Mr.Murlidhar & Mr.Atul Jasani for the Petitioners. Mr.Benni Chatterjee with Mrs.Poonam Bhosale and Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Respondents CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 8th April, 2008 DATE : 8th April, 2008 P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By this Petition, the Petitioners are challenging an order dated 28th January, 2008 whereby the Respondents had rejected the objections raised by the Petitioners without giving any reasons. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, on instructions from Mr.G.U.Ingole (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-32, Mumbai) who is personally present before the Court, states that the Respondent No.1 will forthwith withdraw the impugned order dated 28th Junary, 2008, and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioners the Respondent No.1 will pass a detailed order giving reasons therein dealing with the objections raised by the Petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferrably by 15th May, 2008. 2. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the ( 2 ) learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 3. We make it clear that in the event the order of the Respondent No.1 were to be adverse to the Petitioners, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of four weeks from the date of that order. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan