Shanti Gold & Ors v. Joint Commissioner Of
High Court
20 Aug 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Shanti Gold & Ors v. Joint Commissioner Of
Date of order
20 Aug 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Shanti Gold & Ors v. Joint Commissioner Of, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.
Decision: 2 3.Accordingly, petition is disposed of in above terms as infructuous.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
Sequeira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2014
Shanti Gold & ors.
.. Petitioners
Vs
Joint Commissioner of
Income Tax 20 (3) and ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Ajay R.Singh a/w Mr.Rahul R.Sarda, for Petitioners.Ms.S.V.Bharucha, for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.Mr.Arvind Pinto, for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: M.S.SANKLECHA, J. & N.M.JAMDAR, J. Wednesday 20 August, 2014
P.C.:
Mr.Ajay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the bank guarantee of Rs.52,00,000/- dated 13 June 2014 submitted to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, has been returned to them. The Petitioners have filed fresh bank guarantee of an equivalent amount of Rs.52,00,000/- dated 11 August 2014 with the Commissioner, Income Tax being the security for the seized jewellery which has been returned to the Petitioner, pending adjudication by the Assessing Officer.
2.In view of the above, he seeks liberty to withdraw the present petition as the issues raised in the petition would now be a subject matter of determination before the Assessing Officer.
2
3.Accordingly, petition is disposed of in above terms as infructuous. No order as to costs.
(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)
(M.S.SANKLECHA, 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.