M/S.haware Engineers And Builders Pvt.ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Respondent Central Circle-29, Mumbai And Others
High Court
10 Apr 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.haware Engineers And Builders Pvt.ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Respondent Central Circle-29, Mumbai And Others
Date of order
10 Apr 2013
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In M/S.haware Engineers And Builders Pvt.ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Respondent Central Circle-29, Mumbai And Others, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The petition is accordingly dismissed.
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
1 of 2 WP.655.2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.655 OF 2013
M/s.Haware Engineers and Builders Pvt.Ltd.
Petitioner
versusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax,RespondentCentral Circle-29, Mumbai and others
Mr.S.N.Inamdar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Mihir C. Naniwadekar for Petitioner.Mr.A.R.Malhotra for Respondent.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.
PC :
DATE : 10 April 2013
1.The petition seeks to question the legality of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, purporting to reopen an assessment for A.Y.2004-05 and an order dated 6 March 2013 disposing of the objections of the assessee. The Petitioner has also sought a direction restraining the Assessing Officer from proceeding with the reassessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has already in the meantime, passed an order of assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 148 on 28 March 2013.
2.In that view of the matter, it would not be appropriate or proper for this Court to entertain these proceedings since the petition has been rendered infructuous by the subsequent development. The
2 of 2 WP.655.2013
Petitioner has a substantive remedy of appeal available in accordance with law against the order of assessment. We keep open all the rights and contentions in that regard. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
MST
(A.A.SAYED, J.)
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.