Oracle India Private Limited, (Earlier, Peoplesoft India Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 7(1), Mumbai
High Court
16 Feb 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Oracle India Private Limited, (Earlier, Peoplesoft India Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 7(1), Mumbai
Date of order
16 Feb 2021
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Oracle India Private Limited, (Earlier, Peoplesoft India Pvt. Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range – 7(1), Mumbai, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Decision: 7.Considering the above, we allow the appellant towithdraw the appeal.
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
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2012
Oracle India Private Limited,(Earlier, Peoplesoft India Pvt. Ltd.,)..Appellant.
VersusThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range – 7(1), Mumbai..Respondent
...................
Mr. Atul Jasani, Advocate for the Appellant.
Smt. S.V. Bharucha. Advocate for the Respondent....................
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2021.
P.C.:
Heard Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for the appellant andSmt. Bharucha, learned counsel for the respondent.
2.This appeal under section 260A of the Income TaxAct,1961 has been preferred by the assessee as the appellantagainst the order dated 18.05.2012 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'L' Bench, Mumbai in I.T.A.No.1643/Mum/2009 for the assessment year 2001-02.
3.The appeal was admitted by this Court on 10.12.2014on the substantial questions of law framed in the said order.
4.Today the appeal is before us on a praecipe fled bylearned counsel for the appellant.
5.It is submitted that Parliament has enacted the DirectTax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (briefy 'the Act' hereinafter)providing for a scheme for resolution of tax disputes.Appellant has fled a declaration under section 3 of the saidAct on 29.12.2020 before the Designated Authority which hadthereafter issued a certifcate under section 5(1) of the saidAct 29.01.2021 determining the amount refundable to theappellant. However, for passing of the fnal order undersection 5(2) of the said Act, appellant is required to withdrawthe appeal in terms of section 4(3) thereof. Hence, theprayer for withdrawal of the appeal.
6.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection tothe prayer made for withdrawal of the appeal.
7.Considering the above, we allow the appellant towithdraw the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed ofas withdrawn.
8.Refund as per Rules.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ]
RavindraDigitally signedby Ravindra M.M.AmberkarAmberkarDate: 2021.02.1709:27:33 +0530
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.