Ceat Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
25 Feb 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Ceat Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
25 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ceat Ltd. Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1269 OF 2008
WRIT PETITION NO.1269 OF 2008
CEAT Ltd. Mumbai ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax... Respondent
Mr. P.J. Pardiwala with Mr.Nishant Thakkar i/by
M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for
Petitioner.
Mr. B.M.Chatterjee and Mrs.Poonam Bhosale for the
Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: FEBRUARY 25, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: FEBRUARY 25, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. Rule. Heard forthwith.
. It is the case of the Petitioner that they have
given work on job basis to three other units and in
respect of the amount paid, they have done
deductions at source. The contention of the
assessee is that this amounts to taking the premises
on lease within the meaning of section 194-i. The
Petitioner in the appeal preferred, applied for
interim relief as it is the power in the
commissioner (Appeals) to grant interim relief
without deposit. On hearing the parties the
Petitioner was called upon to deposit sum of
Rs.1,58,84,621/- in two instalments. The Petitioner
aggrieved by the said order is before this court.
. Normally in such matters this court would not
interfere in exercise of its extra ordinary
jurisdiction, more so, as the matter pertains to
revenue. In the instant case, however, considering
the prima facie interpretation advanced before us of
Section 194(1) and on behalf of the revenue it is
not disputed that the assessee herein has no control
over the management or production done by the unit
where job work is done, in our opinion, this is a
fit case to grant interim relief. However, Revenue
will have to be protected for the sum which is
directed to be deposited by the Commissioner
(Appeals). In the light of that the following order
:
. Rule made absolute to the instant that instead of
deposit, the Petitioner is called upon to furnish a
Bank guarantee for the amount of Rs.1,58,84,621/-
within eight days from today and keep the same alive
till the passing of the order and for the further
period of four weeks thereafter.
. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
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.