Case LawHigh Court › The Joint Commissioner Of Income Taxbusi...

The Joint Commissioner Of Income Taxbusiness Range Iiino v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices

High Court 07 Aug 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Joint Commissioner Of Income Taxbusiness Range Iiino v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices
Date of order
07 Aug 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Joint Commissioner Of Income Taxbusiness Range Iiino v. Https://Hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/Hcservices, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence,the writ appeal is dismissed.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.08.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRIandTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH W.A. No.948 of 2014 and M.P. No.1 of 2014 1The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai XNo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 034 2The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Range IIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 0343The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 0344The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Range IIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 034 5The Joint Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Range IIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 034Appellants/ Respondents vs. IFMR TrustIIT-M, Research Part, A-1X Floor, Kanagam VillageTaramaniChennai 600 113represented by its Authorised SignatoryMr. V. VijayaraghavanRespondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patentchallenging the order dated 08.04.2014 passed in W.P. No.10067 of2014. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent and quashthe impugned order in C.No.10601(20)/2013-14/X, dated 20.03.2014 forassessment year 2010-11 and direct the first respondent to grantstay to collection of demand till the disposal of appeal by thethird respondent. For appellants Mr. Pramodkumar Chopda JUDGMENT The respondent herein filed the writ petition before thelearned Single Judge, seeking to quash the order dated 20.03.2014passed by the first appellant, with a consequential prayer to directthe said authority to grant stay of collection of demand till thedisposal of the appeal by the third appellant. 2The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in partby modifying the order dated 20.03.2014 to the effect that thereshall be an order of interim stay of collection of demand till thedisposal of appeal by the third appellant, on condition that therespondent shall pay a total sum of Rs.1.20 crores. While passingthe said order, the learned Single Judge has taken intoconsideration, all the submissions made as well as the decision ofthis Court rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Tamil NaduIndustrial Development Corporation Ltd., (2008) 215 CTR (Mad) 90.Challenging the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, theinstant appeal has been preferred. 3The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that insimilar cases, 50% of the demand was imposed as a pre-condition forgranting stay and therefore, the order impugned in the writ appealwill have to be set aside. 4At this juncture, it is to be noted that the learnedSingle Judge merely exercised his discretion based upon the relevantmaterials placed before him, both on facts and on law. When suchdiscretion is exercised, unless perversity or arbitrariness isshown, the same cannot be set aside. It is not as if the writpetition was allowed in toto by granting an order of stay till thefinal adjudication by the third appellant. The condition which wasimposed by the first appellant while granting stay, has beenpartially modified. No view, whatsoever, has been expressed by thelearned Single Judge, on the merits of the adjudication, which ispending before the third appellant. 5In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason tointerfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence,the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed. 5In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason tointerfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence,the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS III) /true copy/ Sub Asst. RegistrarcadTo1The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai XNo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 0342The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Range IIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 0343The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 0344The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Range IIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 0345The Joint Commissioner of Income TaxBusiness Range IIINo.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadNungambakkam, Chennai 600 0341 cc to Mr.T. Pramodkumar Chopda, Advocate, Sr. 35733 KS (CO)kk 18/8
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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