Jolly Maker Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(2) Mumbai And Ors
High Court
09 Jul 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Jolly Maker Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(2) Mumbai And Ors
Date of order
09 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Jolly Maker Premises Co-Op. Society Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 12(2) Mumbai And Ors, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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.762 OF 2014WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1159 OF 2014WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1238 OF 2014WITHWRIT PETITION NO.1240 OF 2014WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1419 OF 2014
Jolly Maker Premises Co-op. Society Ltd.
vs.Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 12(2) Mumbai and ors.
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina, Senior Counsel with Mr. Manek Andhyarujina and Mr. Sameer Dalal for the Petitioner.Mr. Prakash C.Chhotaray for the Respondents.
CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.DATE : O9 JULY 2014
PC:
Mr. Chhotaray, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents seeks leave to withdraw the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the Assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13. He further seeks liberty to take such proceeding as would be available in law including issuing of fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act.
2)Revenue is granted liberty as prayed for.
3)In view of the above the present writ petitions no longer survive and the same have become infructuous.
4)It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to raise all defences available to it in law including the grounds stated in the present petition in case the revenue takes any other proceedings. It is also made clear that we have not examined the petitions on merits.
5)All the petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
(B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.