Case LawHigh Court › Income Tax Appeal v. Maganese Ore India...

Income Tax Appeal v. Maganese Ore India Ltd. Nagpur

High Court 10 Feb 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Income Tax Appeal v. Maganese Ore India Ltd. Nagpur
Date of order
10 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Income Tax Appeal v. Maganese Ore India Ltd. Nagpur, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 2.The question that arises for determination is whether the assessee-employer can be made liable for consequences set out under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for not deducting tax at source for a period during which salary has already been paid to the employee on account of retrospective amendme...

Decision: 4.Hence, we see no merit in this Income Tax Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

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 BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Income Tax Appeal No.56/2009.The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Aaykar Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur Vs. Maganese ore India Ltd. Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,Appearances, Courts orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dwani, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: S.A. BOBDE & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 10[th] FEBRUARY, 2011. 1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.The question that arises for determination is whether the assessee-employer can be made liable for consequences set out under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act for not deducting tax at source for a period during which salary has already been paid to the employee on account of retrospective amendment to Section 17(2) (ii) of the Act. 3.The appellant is not in a position to point out any difference between the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case decided by the Division Bench 2 of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.108/2008 along with other matters on 1[st] October, 2010. 4.Hence, we see no merit in this Income Tax Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar.
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