Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Indo Gu...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Indo Gulf Industries Ltd

High Court 22 May 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Indo Gulf Industries Ltd
Date of order
22 May 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv v. Indo Gulf Industries Ltd, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

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 DELHI AT NEW DELHI 11 + ITA 599/2016 & CM APPL 29877/2016 (delay) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia with Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates. Advocates. versus INDO GULF INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha with Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL O R D E R% 22.05.2017 -CM APPL 29877/2016 (delay of 1045 days in refiling) & ITA 599/20161. There is an inordinate delay of 1045 days in re-filing the appeal. 2. The Court finds that the standard excuse that the Department is putting forth in all such applications for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal is the change of Standing Counsel for the Department and the failure by the earlier counsel to inform the Department about the appeal lying in defect. This explanation does not impress the Court. It is not possible to accept that no one in the Department followed up on the filing of appeals and allowed a period of almost three years to elapse before the appeal could be re-filed. The Department has a cell in the High Court which is under the supervision ITA 599/2016 Page 1 of 2 of a Deputy CIT. He ought to be keeping track of the filing of appeals and should be able to know if any appeal entrusted to the panel counsel for filing has not been listed even once before the Court for a long time. 3. The application for condonation of the delay of 1045 days in re-filing the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 22, 2017 Rm VINOD GOEL, J ITA 599/2016 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI53 + W.P.(C) 4441/2017 & CM APPL 19390/2017 (stay) LS CABLE & SYSTEM LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati with Mr. Shashi Mathews, Mr. Ankit Sachdeva, Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Ms. Rachana Yadav,Mr. Kishore Kunal and Mr. Manish Rastogi, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % O R D E R22.05.2017 1. Notice. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents. A complete set of paper book be supplied to him during the course of the day. Learned counsel for the Respondents seeks time to obtain instructions. 2. List on 30[th] May, 2017. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 22, 2017/Rm VINOD GOEL, J $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI63 + W.P.(C) 4497/2017 & CM APPL 19649/2017 (stay) MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED & ANR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Tarun Gulati with Mr. Shashi Mathews, Mr. Ankit Sachdeva, Mr. Sparsh Bhargava, Ms. Rachana Yadav,Mr. Kishore Kunal and Mr. Manish Rastogi, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior standing counsel for R-2 to R-4. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL O R D E R % 22.05.2017 1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition at this stage with liberty to urge all the points raised in this petition before the adjudicating authority including the question regarding jurisdiction. 2. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The pending application also stands dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 22, 2017/Rm VINOD GOEL, J $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 66 + W.P.(C) 4500/2017 GYPSUM STRUCTURAL INDIA PVT LTD Through: Mr. Vineet Bhatia, Advocate. .... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL O R D E R% 22.05.2017 WP (C) 4500/2017 1. Notice. Mr. Siddharth Dutta, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He seeks time to obtain instructions. 2. List on 29[th] May, 2017. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 22, 2017 Rm VINOD GOEL, J $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 22, 2017/Rm VINOD GOEL, J $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 66 + W.P.(C) 4500/2017 GYPSUM STRUCTURAL INDIA PVT LTD Through: Mr. Vineet Bhatia, Advocate. .... Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF VALUE ADDED TAX ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL O R D E R% 22.05.2017 WP (C) 4500/2017 1. Notice. Mr. Siddharth Dutta, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent. He seeks time to obtain instructions. 2. List on 29[th] May, 2017. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 22, 2017 Rm VINOD GOEL, J $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 5 + ITA 407/2017 INTERATED DATA BASE & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Shyamalima Borah, Advocate versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia with Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL O R D E R% 22.05.2017 CM APPL 18642/2017 (For exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA No. 407/2017 2. At the request of learned counsel for the Appellant, adjourned to 7[th] July, 2017. S.MURALIDHAR, J MAY 22, 2017/Rm VINOD GOEL, J $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 8 + W.P.(C) 3837/2017 H.P. & SONS & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Senior counsel with Mr. P. Roy Chaudhuri, Advocate. versus DGIT (INVESTIGATION), DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior standing counsel. ..... Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL % O R D E R22.05.2017 1. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior standing counsel for the Respondents produces a copy of the order dated 9[th] May, 2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 35 (1), New Delhi in the case of Petitioner No. 2, Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Supreme Gold disposing of the application under the first proviso to Section 132 B (1) (i) of the Income Tax Act 1961. A copy of the said order has also been furnished to Mr. Tiku, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner. 2. It will be open to the Petitioners to amend the writ petition to challenge the aforementioned order. 3. List on 10[th] July, 2017. MAY 22, 2017 Rm S.MURALIDHAR, J VINOD GOEL, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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