V.k.texchem Pvt.ltd.mumai v. Union Of India & Anr. Income Tax Officer 4(3) Mumbai
High Court
10 Jan 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
V.k.texchem Pvt.ltd.mumai v. Union Of India & Anr. Income Tax Officer 4(3) Mumbai
Date of order
10 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
2006-2007
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In V.k.texchem Pvt.ltd.mumai v. Union Of India & Anr. Income Tax Officer 4(3) Mumbai, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2263/2010
V.K.Texchem Pvt.Ltd.MumaiPetitionerVs.Union of India & Anr.Income Tax Officer 4(3) MumbaiRespondents
Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma for petitionerMr.P.S.Sahadevan for respondents
CORAM-J.P.DEVADHAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJDATE-10TH JANUARY,2011.
P.C.
.This petition is filed to challenge the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the said notice assessment for the assessment year 2006-2007 was sought to be reopened.
2.Admittedly the reasons for reopening the assessment were furnished to the petitioner on 1/9/2010.
3.Instead of filing the objections to the reopening of the assessment the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition on 12/10/2010 but took no steps to move the Court seeking stay of the proceeding. It is only after reassessment order was passed on 27[th ]
December,2010 and demands were raised, the petitioner has chosen to move this Court today for the first time.
4.In these circumstances we do not consider it to be a fit case
for invoking the writ jurisdiction and the petitioner must be relegated the remedy of filing of appeal.
The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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