Herculer Hoists Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10(3),& Others
High Court
05 Apr 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Herculer Hoists Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10(3),& Others
Date of order
05 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Herculer Hoists Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10(3),& Others, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.605 OF 2011
Herculer Hoists Limited..Petitioner.
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 10(3),& Others..Respondents.
Mr.J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the petitioner.Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 5[th] April, 2011.
1.Heard. Rule. By consent of both the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 2-2-2011 and 16-3-2011, whereby the stay application filed by the petitioner seeking stay of the recovery of demands for assessment years 2006-07, 2005-06 and 2008-09 have been disposed off by directing the petitioner to make 50% payment of the demand raised pursuant to the orders in the respective assessment years.
3.Perusal of the stay orders clearly shows that the said orders have
been passed without following the guidelines framed by this Court in the case of KEC International Limited V/s. B.R. Balakrishnan & Others reported in 251 ITR 158.
4.In this view of the matter, both the orders dated 2-2-2011 and 16-3-2011 are quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the respondent No.3 to pass a fresh order on the stay application filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. If the order to be passed by the respondent No.3 is adverse to the petitioner, same shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the said order.
5.Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(Smt.R.S. Dalvi, 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.