Case LawHigh Court › Sommerville Farms Private Limited v. The...

Sommerville Farms Private Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Mubmai And Anr

High Court 13 Dec 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Sommerville Farms Private Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Mubmai And Anr
Date of order
13 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Sommerville Farms Private Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Mubmai And Anr, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: In this view of the matter, the SSM 3wp.2325.10 group impugned order dated 14th May, 2010 is quashed and set aside; and the matter is restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I to decide the question afresh in accordance with law.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

SSM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2325 OF 2010 Sommerville Farms Private Limited .... Petitioner VERSUS The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Mubmai and Anr. .... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2010 Gupta Emerald Mines Private Ltd. .... Petitioner VERSUS The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Mubmai and Anr. .... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2335 OF 2010 Camellia Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner VERSUS The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Mubmai and Anr..... Respondents Mr. F. V. Irani a/w Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/b. Mind & Confreres for the Petitioner. SSM wp.2325.10 group Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents. CORAM:J. P. DEVDHAR, J.R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED:DECEMBER 13, 2010. P.C.: 1.Rule. Returnable forthwith. The Petitions are taken for final hearing by consent of the parties. 2.In all these Writ Petitions the Petitioners have challenged the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 14th May, 2010 whereby the case proceedings of the Petitioners have been transferred from Mumbai to Jaipur. Admittedly, the Petitioners on receipt of the notice dated 25th August, 2009, had filed objections opposing the transfer of the case from Mumbai to Jaipur. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax -I shows that neither the objections raised by the Petitioners have been considered nor any reason has been given for transferring the case from Mumbai to Jaipur. In this view of the matter, the SSM 3wp.2325.10 group impugned order dated 14th May, 2010 is quashed and set aside; and the matter is restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax-I to decide the question afresh in accordance with law. (R. M. SAVANT, J) (J. P. DEVDHAR, J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax 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