Case LawHigh Court › Icici Bank Limited v. Dy. Commissioner O...

Icici Bank Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Mumbai & Others

High Court 21 Dec 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Icici Bank Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Mumbai & Others
Date of order
21 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Icici Bank Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Mumbai & Others, the High Court (2010) 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2867 OF 2010 ICICI Bank LimitedVersus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1),Mumbai & Others ..Petitioner. ..Respondents. Ms.A. Vissanjee with Mr.S.J. Mehta the petitioner.Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondents. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 21[st] December, 2010. 1.Challenging the notice dated 31[st] March 2010 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has filed objections and admittedly the said objections have not been disposed off by the assessing officer. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft reported in 259 ITR 19,the assessing officer is directed to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioner vide their letter dated 4[th ]October 2010 as expeditiously as possible. 2.The assessment proceedings shall remain stayed till the objections raised by the petitioner are heard and disposed of by the assessing officer and for a further period of four weeks from the date of communication of the said order to the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Advocate for the petitioner would accept service of the order passed by the assessing officer on the objections raised by the petitioner. 3.The writ petition is disposed off in terms of this order. No costs. (R.M. Savant, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 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