Case LawHigh Court › M/S. Longview Sales Agencies Private Lim...

M/S. Longview Sales Agencies Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Kolkata & Ors

High Court 27 Sep 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
M/S. Longview Sales Agencies Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Kolkata & Ors
Date of order
27 Sep 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In M/S. Longview Sales Agencies Private Limited v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax – 6, Kolkata & Ors, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

Decision: This writ petition being WPO 816 of 2021 is disposed of.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

OD 21 ORDER SHEET WPO 816 of 2021IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE M/S. LONGVIEW SALES AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 6, KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE:The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDINDate : 27[th] September, 2021. (Via Video Conference) Solicitor General Mr. Radha Mohan Roy, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: In this matter the petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 8[th] Janaury, 2021 being annexure P-7 to thewrit petition rejecting the petitioner’s application under Direct TaxVivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 filed on 8[th] January, 2021, on the groundthat the petitioner could not satisfy the conditions laid down in queryno. 59 of CBDT Circular no. 21/20 dt. 4[th] December, 2020 bycontending that on the date of filing such application under thescheme in question no appeal was pending as on 31[st] January, 2020. From the records it appears that petitioner has filed theapplication under the said scheme being annexure P-6 to the writpetition on 8[th] January, 2021 and it also appears from records beingannexure P-5 to the writ petition that the application for condonation of delay was not only filed rather it was disposed of by allowing thesame by the learned Tribunal by order dated 30[th] December, 2020. Considering these facts I am of the considered opinion that theorder of the respondent Income Tax Authority rejecting the applicationof the petitioner under the scheme in question on the face of it isperverse and bad in law and from the records it clearly appears thatthe petitioner has fulfilled the criteria laid down in query 59 of theaforesaid CBDT circular dated 4[th] December, 2020. Apart from thisfact the petitioner as also in support of his contention has relied on adecision in the case of “Boddu Ramesh vs. Designated Authority andOrs” reported in (2021) 437 ITR 32 (Telangana). Accordingly aforesaid impugned order dated 8[th] January, 2021being annexure P-7 to the writ petition is quashed and the respondentIncome Tax Authority is directed to treat the application in questionas valid. This writ petition being WPO 816 of 2021 is disposed of. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, 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