Global Services Pvt. Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer 9(1)-4
High Court
27 Jan 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Global Services Pvt. Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer 9(1)-4
Date of order
27 Jan 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Global Services Pvt. Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer 9(1)-4, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Decision: Petition stands disposed of in terms of the abvoe.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.199 OF 2006
WRIT PETITION NO.199 OF 2006
3 Global Services Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioners
V/s
The Income Tax Officer 9(1)-4
Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.J.D.Mistry with Mr.R.Muralidhar i/by M/s.Kanga &
Co.for the Petitioners.
Mr.S.M.Shah for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 27.01.2006.
DATE : 27.01.2006.
DATE : 27.01.2006.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. Rule. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1
to 4 waives service. The presence of Respondent No.5 is
not necessary in view of the order that we propose to
pass today. By consent taken up for hearing.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. The
Petitioners challenge the action of the Income Tax
Department in attaching the bank account of the
Petitioners during the pendency of the stay application
before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The learned
Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the
Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has heard the appeal
filed against the assessment order for Assessment Year
2003-2004 and adjourned the matter to 27.2.2006 in order
to enable him to obtain the report from the Revenue.
4. Mr.Mistry, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
states that since the attachment of the bank account
totally paralysed the functioning of the Company, they
had agreed to deposit 50% of the assessed tax without
prejudice to their right to challenge the same. In fact
the Revenue has already recovered Rs.1.5 crores from the
Petitioner on 23.12.2005. The learned Counsel for the
Petitioner assures that the Petitioner will deposit a
further sum of Rs.1.5 crores with the Respondents on or
before 31st January, 2006.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, instead of directing the Commissioner of
Income Tax to dispose of the stay application, we direct
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to dispose of
the Appeal filed by the Petitioner as expeditiously as
possible, on or before 10th March, 2006.
6. Mr.Shah, the learned Counsel for the Respondents
states that the report of the Revenue will be forwarded
to the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), well in time
before 27th February, 2006 and a copy thereof will also
be furnished to the Petitioner well in time before 27th
February, 2006.
7. We make it clear that on the Petitioner depositing a
sum of Rs.1.5 crores on or before 31st January, 2006
with the Respondents, the Respondents shall not recover
any further amount from the Petitioner relating to the
remaining tax payable under the assessment order for
Assessment Year 2003-2004. till the disposal of the
Appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). We also
make it clear that in the event the order of the Income
Tax Commissioner (A), goes adverse to the Petitioner,
the same shall not be given effect to for a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of that order by
the Petitioner.
8. Petition stands disposed of in terms of the abvoe.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.