Sterlite Copper Rolling Mills v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 3(3), Mumbai And Others
High Court
06 Jan 2022 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Sterlite Copper Rolling Mills v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 3(3), Mumbai And Others
Date of order
06 Jan 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Sterlite Copper Rolling Mills v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 3(3), Mumbai And Others, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
VISHALSUBHASHPAREKAR
Digitally signed byVISHAL SUBHASHPAREKARDate: 2022.01.0710:49:06 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITI0N NO.2496 OF 2008
Sterlite Copper Rolling Mills
...Petitioner
vs.Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)Range 3(3), Mumbai and Others
...Respondents
WITHWRIT PETITION NO.2498 OF 2008WITHWRIT PETITION NO.2497 OF 2008
Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, for thePetitioners.
CORAM :K.R. SHRIRAM &N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.
DATE :JANUARY 06, 2022(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
P.C.:
.Mr. Pardiwalla states that the Writ Petition No. 2498 of 2008
is wrongly on board and dismissed vide order dated 17[th] December,2021.
2.As regards Writ Petition No. 2496 of 2008 and 2497 of 2008Mr. Pardiwala states that his instructions are, petitioners wereunder liquidation and they have not received any instruction fromthe liquidator to pursue these two petitions.
3.Petitions, therefore stand dismissed, since these petitionswere also listed on 17[th] December, 2021.
4.At the same time, at the request of Mr. Pardiwala if theliquidator decides to pursue these petitions, liberty is given to applyfor restoration of the petitions provided the application is madewithin four weeks from today.
(N. J. JAMADAR, J.)
(K. R. SHRIRAM, 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.
EaseValue