Case LawHigh Court › M/S. Mahindra Sona Limited v. Commission...

M/S. Mahindra Sona Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-Ii, Mumbai

High Court 05 Jan 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S. Mahindra Sona Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-Ii, Mumbai
Date of order
05 Jan 2021
Assessment year(s)
1997-98
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In M/S. Mahindra Sona Limited v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-Ii, Mumbai, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.

Decision: 8.Appeal is accordingly disposed of on withdrawal.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

Balaji G.Panchal Digitally signed byBalaji G. PanchalDate: 2021.01.0614:46:21 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.461 OF 2005 M/s. Mahindra Sona LimitedVs.Commissioner of Income Tax, City-II, Mumbai …Appellant…Respondent Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Appellant.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.DATE :JANUARY 05, 2021 P.C.: Heard Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel Revenue for the respondent. 2.This appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hasbeen preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2005 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Mumbai inI.T.A.No.1629/Mumbai/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98. 3.The appeal was admitted by this Court on 24.10.2008 on thesubstantial questions of law framed in the said order. 4.The appeal has now been listed on praecipe filed by the appellant. 5.Mr. Jasani submits that Parliament has enacted the Direct TaxVivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter) providing for ascheme for resolution of tax disputes. In terms of the said scheme,appellant had filed a declaration on 01.12.2020 before the DesignatedAuthority which had issued the certificate under section 5(1) of the saidAct on 11.12.2020 determining the tax dues payable by the assessee atRs.88,89,335.00. However, before passing of the final order under section 5(2) of the said Act, appellant is required to withdraw the appealin terms of section 4(3). Hence, the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. 6.Mr. Kumar, learned standing counsel Revenue has no objection tothe prayer made for withdrawal of the appeal. 7.Considering the above, we allow the appellant to withdraw theappeal. 8.Appeal is accordingly disposed of on withdrawal. 9.Refund as per Rules. 10.This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of thisCourt. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitallysigned copy of this order. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab
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