Texaco Overseas Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 25(1
High Court
06 Oct 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Texaco Overseas Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 25(1
Date of order
06 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Texaco Overseas Pvt. Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 25(1, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
$~14-16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P. (C) Nos.6984/2015, 7023/2015 & 7024/2015
TEXACO OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh, Advocate.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1)
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Jr. Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
%
O R D E R
06.10.2016
The grievance in these petitions is that the respondents adjusted the ostensible demands for various assessment years which were not based upon any valid assessments justifying such action. It is contended that though the Assessing Officer had initially assessed the amounts and determined the tax, relief was granted by the CIT (A) which was not duly worked out and consequently remained unreflected in the records.
This Court had issued notice and granted time to the revenue to respond in these proceedings. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the petitioner’s representations which are part of the record and pass an
order thereon having regard to the relevant assessments and appeal records for the concerned time period and also after giving at least one week’s prior notice to the petitioner. The entire process shall be completed within six weeks from today and the orders communicated directly to the petitioners.
The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
OCTOBER 06, 2016
/vikas/
DEEPA SHARMA, 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.