Cgu Logistic Limited v. M.s.rao (Income Tax Officer – 1(1)(2) Mumbaiand Others
High Court
15 Mar 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Cgu Logistic Limited v. M.s.rao (Income Tax Officer – 1(1)(2) Mumbaiand Others
Date of order
15 Mar 2010
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Cgu Logistic Limited v. M.s.rao (Income Tax Officer – 1(1)(2) Mumbaiand Others, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Decision: The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION NO.566 OF 2010
CGU Logistic Limited..Petitioner.
Vs.
M.S.Rao (Income Tax Officer – 1(1)(2) Mumbaiand others..Respondents.
....
Mr. Soli S. Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nishant Thakkar, Ms. Shweta Diwan, Ms. Amruta Mehta and Mr. Kannan Thever i/b Mulla & Mulla & CBC for the Petitioner.Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Respondents.
....
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
15[th] March, 2010.
P.C.:
Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
The Petition is directed against an order dated 23[rd ]
February, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Officer 1(1)(2), Mumbai
declining to grant a stay of the recovery of a demand. The demand
pertains to Assessment Year 2007-08. During the course of the hearing of the Petition, the Court has been informed that the Petitioner has completed its submissions in the appeal which was filed against the order of assessment and the final orders are awaited. In that view of the matter, the only appropriate order to pass in these proceedings would be to direct that until the CIT(A) passes final orders in the appeal and for a period of four weeks from the date of the service of the order, the Respondents shall not enforce the demand which forms the subject matter of these proceedings viz. for Assessment Year 2007-08. There shall be an order in these terms. No further directions are necessary. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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.