Case LawHigh Court › M/S Simplex Casting Ltd v. Dy.commission...

M/S Simplex Casting Ltd v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(3),Mumbai

High Court 11 Nov 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S Simplex Casting Ltd v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(3),Mumbai
Date of order
11 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Simplex Casting Ltd v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(3),Mumbai, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.

Decision: 5The Petition stands disposed of with the above directions.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

dik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2811 OF 2014WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2812 OF 2014 M/s Simplex Casting Ltd. ...Petitioner vs Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(3),Mumbai ...Respondent ..... Mr S.C.Tiwari for the PetitionerMr Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ. NOVEMBER 11, 2014 P.C. : This Petition challenges the order dated 30 September 2014 passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the Petitioner's application for stay under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), till the disposal of its appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) from the Assessing Officer's order dated 31 March 2013, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2We find that administratively the Commissioner of Income Tax, as a matter of practice does entertain and deal with the application for stay, pending the disposal of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), under Section 220(6) of the Act on the same being rejected by the Assessing Officer. In the present case the Petitioner has not moved the Commissioner of Income Tax against the order dated 30 September 2014, passed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the Petitioner's stay application. 3In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain this Petition, as the Petitioner has a remedy available of filing of an application for stay with the Commissioner of Income Tax. However, as directed by this Court in UTI Mutual Pg 1 of 2 Fund Vs I.T.O. 345 ITR 71, wherein while laying down the guidelines for disposal of the stay applications has directed the authorities, not to adopt any coercive proceedings till the disposal of the stay application filed before the appropriate authority for a reasonable period thereafter. 4In the light of above, in case the Petitioner files its stay application within 12 days from today with the Commissioner of Income Tax, the Respondent Revenue will not adopt any coercive proceedings till the disposal of the Petitioner's stay application by the Commissioner of Income Tax and for a period of two weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order to the Petitioner. 5The Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.C.GUPTE J. ) ( M.S.SANKLECHA J. ) Pg 2 of 2
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