Case LawHigh Court › Ca/1433/2014 Of Official Liquidator Of M...

Ca/1433/2014 Of Official Liquidator Of M/S Kirloskar Investments v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 18 Mar 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ca/1433/2014 Of Official Liquidator Of M/S Kirloskar Investments v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
18 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ca/1433/2014 Of Official Liquidator Of M/S Kirloskar Investments v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BBNGALURU DATED THIS THE 18 DAY OF MARCH, 2016 BEFORE| THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.A.NO. 1433/201InCO.P.NO.2 /200 BETWEEN: OFFICIAL LIOUIDATOR OFM/S KIRLOSKAR INVESTMENTSAND FINANCE LIMITED (IN LION.)ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF |KARNATAKA, “CORPORATE BHAVAN”|NO.260-27, 1 KRLOOR,RAHEJA TOWERS, MG ROAD.BANGALORE-5D6000 1 _ APPLICANT (BY SRI.K.S.MAHADEVAN AND SRI.V.JAYARAM, ADVS. FOR|OL)| AND: CHIEF COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX,BANGALORE. RBSPONDBENT (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS C.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 446 OF THECOMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W RULES 6 & 9 OF COMPANIES|(COURT)RULES1959|PRAYINGTO.DIRECTTHERJURISDICTIONAL INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES IL.E., THECHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE TO> RECALL ALL THERE ATTACHMENT NOTICES [SSUBD UNDERULE 48 OF THE II SCHEDULE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961WITHRESPECTTOALL|THE.IMMOVABLEPROPERTIES.BELONGINGTO.THERCOMPANYIN-LIQUIDATION AND NOT TO PROCEED WITH SALE.| THIS C.A COMING FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THECOURT MADE THK FOLLOWING:| ORDER Heard.ori.K.S.Mahadevan,learnedcounsel appearing for the Official Liquidator and Sri.K.V.Aravind,learnedpanelcounsel]appearingfor.theChietCommissioner — Income Tax. © 2 |This application is filed seeking for recall ofthe attachment notices issued by jurisdictional IncomeTax Officer i1.e., Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, underRule 48 of II Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in)respectOT immovablepropertiesOT COMpa fl1nNliquidation contending interalia that on account ofproperties having been attached the Official Liquidatorhas been unable to sell the same and pay the creditors. 3.|M/s.Kirloskar Investment and Finance Ltd.,was ordered to be wound up by this Court by order dated 24.12.2010 in COP No.2/2000. Pursuant to sameOfficial Liquidator was appointed and he has been in.custody and control of all the properties, effects andactionable claims to which company (in liquidation) isentitled. Under Section 497(1) of the Companies Act theOfficial Liquidator is empowered to sell the properties ofthe company in liquidation with the sanction of thecompany Court. It is stated that there are followingproperties of the company (in liquidation): 3.|In respect of above said properties therespondent has issued notices of attachment as perAnnexure-A. On account oft said attachment the OfficialLiquidator pleads his inability to implement or executethe sale of properties to realize the proceeds payable tothe creditors. 4Learned panel counsel - 8Sri.K.V.Aravindappearing for respondent would submit on instructionsfromtherespondent|Department.that|OfficialLiquidator may be permitted to sell the properties inquestion and Department would have no objection forraising the attachment subject to the amounts realisedon such sale being disbursed only with the leave of theCourt. His submission is placed on record and theapplication stands allowed. The order of attachment inrespect of the properties referred to hereinabove of theChief Commissioner of the Income Tax, Bangalore standsrecalled and it is made clear that the Official Liquidatorwould be at liberty take steps to sell the immovable properties belonging to the company in liquidation inaccordance with Section 497(1) by filing appropriatereport or application before this Court. It is also madeclear that without leave of the Court the OfficialLiquidator would not be entitled to make any payment ordisbursement. It is also made clear that the respondent.- Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore would beat liberty to make appropriate application for paymentsof the sale proceeds after sale takes place and in theevent of such an application is filed the OfficialLiquidator would be at liberty to consider the same onmerits and in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE DR|
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