Case Law › High Court › M/S.kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd v. Deputy...

M/S.kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle 9, Pune & Ors

High Court 05 Apr 2013 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · newas

Parties

Date of order

05 Apr 2013

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In M/S.kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Circle 9, Pune & Ors, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 148 case law →

The order — as passed by the High Court

VBC 1/1 wp3051.13-5.4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYAPPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3051 OF 2013 M/s.Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. Vs. ...Petitioner. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle 9, Pune & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the Petitioner.Mr.Tejveer Singh for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. April 5, 2013. P.C. : The Petition is not on Board and has been mentioned with notice to the Revenue. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue is present. By consent, the Petition is taken on Board and is called out. The Petition seeks to challenge a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner applies for leave to withdraw the Petition since the order of assessment has already been passed and the Petitioner seeks to pursue the remedy in appeal. The request is not opposed. Hence, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. All rights and contentions are kept open in the proceedings in appeal. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A.A.Sayed, 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.