Case LawHigh Court › Rhrough H'":L{Il:r1K;Fi;" v. Assistant C...

Rhrough H'":L{Il:r1K;Fi;" v. Assistant Commissioner [Of ][Income ][Tax ][Tds ][And Anr

High Court 28 Nov 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Rhrough H'":L{Il:r1K;Fi;" v. Assistant Commissioner [Of ][Income ][Tax ][Tds ][And Anr
Date of order
28 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Rhrough H'":L{Il:r1K;Fi;" v. Assistant Commissioner [Of ][Income ][Tax ][Tds ][And Anr, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: The prayer for withdrawal [is ][accepted ][and ][the ][writ ][petition ][is]dismissed as withdrawn [with ][liberfy ][as ][prayed ][for. ][It ][is directed that the]will not [take ][coercive ][steps ][to ][recover ][the ][impugned]respondent demand, if any, [pertaining to ][the ][period mentioned ][i...

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

lL-? rJ \ ., s-33-37* IN THE HIGII COURT + W.P.(C) Nos. 202412011,202612011,202712011,2030/2011&,2032120rr ..... Petitioner TATA TELESERVICES rhrough H'"#:l{il:R1k*;fi;" versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER rhrough Mr. Abhisn". r'"*i'lTi*tStanding Counsel [with ][Ms.]Anshul Sharma, Adv. CoRAM:HON'BLE MR. HON'BLE MR. [JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR] ORDER28.11.201t o Mr. Dushyant Dave, [Sr. ][Advocate ][appearing ][for ][the ][petitioner]seeks permission to withdraw [the ][present ][writ ][petition ][with ][liberty ][to]file a fresh writ [petition, in which ][they ][want ][to ][challenge ][vires ][of ][the]proviso to Section 201(3) of [the ][Income Tax ][Act, ][1961 inserted ][by ][the]Finance [(No.2) ][Act,2009 ][with ][effect ][from ][1" ][April, ][2010. He ][fuither]submits that the [petitioner ][should be ][permitted ][to ][raise grounds ][and]contentions, which have [been ][raised ][in ][the ][present ][writ ][petition. ][It ][is]submitted that the [constitutional ][validity of ][the ][proviso is ][required ][to]in view [of ][the ][decisions ][of ][this Court ][in ][Commissioner]be challenged of Income Tax [Vs. ] [fapan ][Broatlccrsting ][Corporation ][[2008J 305] t a ITR 137 (Delhi) [and ][Commissioner ][of ][Income ][Tsx ][Vs. ][Hutcltison] Essar Telecome Ltd., [2010J [323 ] [(Delhi). It ][is ][further ][prayed]that the interirn order [passed ][by ][the Court directing that ][no ][coercive]steps shall be [taken may be continued ][for ][a ][period ][of ][15 days ][to ][enable]the petitioner to file [a ][fresh ][writ ][petition.] We have heard the [statement ][made ][by ][the ][learned ][senior]counsel. The prayer for withdrawal [is ][accepted ][and ][the ][writ ][petition ][is]dismissed as withdrawn [with ][liberfy ][as ][prayed ][for. ][It ][is directed that the]will not [take ][coercive ][steps ][to ][recover ][the ][impugned]respondent demand, if any, [pertaining to ][the ][period mentioned ][in ][the ][writ ][petition]for a period of 15 [daYs ][from ][todaY.] ''L ,4-l [( ]L-L- /r'SANJIV KI{ANNA, J. l,I tlVl,l"u-l-t,R.V.EASWAR, J. NOVEMBER [28, ][aOIL]NA
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Respond to a penalty notice → 💬 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