Case LawHigh Court › M/S. Gondia District Central Cooperative...

M/S. Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank v. Thecommissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur & Ors

High Court 04 Apr 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
M/S. Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank v. Thecommissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur & Ors
Date of order
04 Apr 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S. Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank v. Thecommissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur & Ors, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.

Decision: With these directions, writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1453 OF 2013 (M/s. Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank through its Chief Executive Officer vs. TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur & Ors. ) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's Orders. Court's or Judge's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.APRIL 04, 2013. Heard Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the respondents. Shri Bhattad, learned Counsel states that in compliance with the orders dated 19.03.2013, passed by this Court, the petitioner viz., M/s. Gondia District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, has deposited an amount of Rs. Two crores more and thus 50% of the total assessed liability has been met with. Shri Parchure, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – revenue, has invited attention to the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 18.03.2013. He submits that these orders were passed before the orders of this Court and as per those orders, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the balance amount so as to secure total deposit of 60% of the liability. The remaining demand of 40% was stayed till disposal of the appeal. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner should deposit the balance amount of liability or then to furnish adequate security for that purpose. As 50% of the liability is already taken care of, we direct the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax to treat this as sufficient compliance and to decide the appeal as early as possible as directed in Writ Petition No. 1452 of 2013. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.
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