B.c. Biyani Projects (Pvt.) Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii And Others
High Court
20 Mar 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
B.c. Biyani Projects (Pvt.) Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii And Others
Date of order
20 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In B.c. Biyani Projects (Pvt.) Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii And Others, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
Decision: Writ petition is, therefore, rejected.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2258 OF 2013
B.C. Biyani Projects (Pvt.) Ltd.Petitionerversus
The Commissioner of Income Tax-II and OthersRespondents
-------
Shri M.K.Kulkarni with Shri R.R.Chandak Advs. for PetitionerShri Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for Respondewnts
-------
CORAM : R. M. BORDE, AND SUNIL P.DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE : MARCH 20, 2013
P. C.
1.Heard.
2.Petitioner impugns order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 5.12.2012 passed by Respondent No.1, transferring petitioner's case to Respondent No.2, contending that the impugned order is not preceded by any reasons and that the petitioner apprehends bias against it of the officer concerned.
3.Shri Alok Sharma, learned Asstt. Solicitor General appearing for Respondents, has produced before us a copy of reasons for the impugned order.
4.We do not deem it appropriate that on general allegations by petitioner of bias against respondent No. 2, the apprehension is worthy to be considered for re-transfer of its case from
Respondent No.2 to some other officer at the fag end of the financial year, especially looking at the reasons now made available to us.
5.In view of above, we are not inclined to exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the petition. Writ petition is, therefore, rejected.
(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)
(R. M. BORDE, J.)
pnd
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.