Case LawHigh Court › Milind Harishchandra Rane v. Income Tax...

Milind Harishchandra Rane v. Income Tax Ofïcer, Ward-1(2) & Ors

High Court 12 Apr 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Milind Harishchandra Rane v. Income Tax Ofïcer, Ward-1(2) & Ors
Date of order
12 Apr 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Milind Harishchandra Rane v. Income Tax Ofïcer, Ward-1(2) & Ors, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SARANG V.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO. 536 OF 2019 Milind Harishchandra Rane ..Petitioner Versus Income Tax OfÏcer, Ward-1(2) & Ors. ..Respondents ................... Mr. Devendra H. Jain for the Petitioner Mr. Devendra H. Jain for the Petitioner Mr. Sham Walve for the RespondentMr. Sham Walve for the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : APRIL 12, 2019. P.C.: 1.The petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.1.2019 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax insisting thatthe petitioner must deposit 20% of the disputed tax demandpending hearing of the appeal before the AppellateCommissioner. It is undisputed that the petitioner hasalready deposited a part of 20% of Rs. 3.25 Crores ofdisputed tax and present, the shortfall which the Departmentis demanding is Rs. 27,09,900/-. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that theappeal is pending before the Appellate Commissioner sincelong. Previously hearing had taken place, however, theappeal could not be disposed of finally. The petitioner hasalready offered the income arising out of development ofhousing project to tax in later years. If one considers the taxpaid by the petitioner in such later assessment years, therequirement of depositing 20% of the disputed tax demandwould be met with. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and finaldocuments on record. We do not find any error in the view ofthe Commissioner in insisting 20% of the disputed taxdemand pending appeal. On what condition to grant staypending further consideration of the appeal, is essentiallydiscretionary powers of the quasi judicial authority. TheCBDT has issued circulars from time to time laying downbroad guidelines for exercise of such discretion. TheCommissioner being applied its mind to the facts of the caseand imposed the condition which even otherwise does notappear to be unreasonable, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. [ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]
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