Nakoda Machinery Pvt. Ltd., Ahmednagar v. Ghuge
High Court
03 Dec 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
Nakoda Machinery Pvt. Ltd., Ahmednagar v. Ghuge
Date of order
03 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Nakoda Machinery Pvt. Ltd., Ahmednagar v. Ghuge, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12869 OF 2021IN ITA/37/2020 WITH CA/12868/2021 IN ITA/36/2020
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – I, PUNEVERSUS
NAKODA MACHINERY PVT. LTD., AHMEDNAGAR
...
Mr A. R. Kale and Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocates for applicant;
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 3rd December, 2021
PER COURT:
1.
By these applications, the applicant – original appellant has
put forth a peculiar situation. He contends that the order dated11/03/2021, permitting the department to withdraw the TaxAppeals even before issuance of notice, were entrusted toAdvocate Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar and Advocate Shri.A. R. Kale. The said appeals were to be withdrawn in the light ofthe respondent having availed of “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme2020”. The respondent in both these matters is the same industry.Inadvertently, it appears that the facts of some different case arerecorded in the order and the name of a different Counsel is
(2)
12868.20ca etc
mentioned as representing the appellant. The reason set out in theorder dated 11/03/2021, is not a reason for which the Income TaxDepartment withdrew the appeals.
2.In view of the above, as the order dated 11/03/2021 soughtto be reviewed, was passed before issuance of the notice to therespondent and as the respondent settled the dispute with theIncome Tax Department, these civil applications are allowed. Theorder dated 11/03/2021 stands reviewed/corrected as under :-
(a)The name of the appellant shown as ‘PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax – 2, Aurangabad’ is wronglytyped and be replaced by the ‘Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-I, Pune.
(b)The appearance of Advocates Smt. Kalpalata PatilBharaswadkar and Shri. A. R. Kale be shown as theAdvocate representing the Income Tax Department-appellant in place of Advocate Sharma;
(c)11/03/2021, be replaced as under :-
The reason set out in paragraph 2 of the order dated
“The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
12868.20ca etc(3)
tenders a copy of the instructions dated 04/03/2021,vide which, the department desires to withdraw theTax Appeals since the respondent has availed of“Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020”;
(d)The rest of the order shall remain as it is.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
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.