Wp/11428/2016 Of M/S. Swastik Estate Through Partners v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 And Ors
High Court
27 Oct 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/11428/2016 Of M/S. Swastik Estate Through Partners v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 And Ors
Date of order
27 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/11428/2016 Of M/S. Swastik Estate Through Partners v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2 And Ors, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 5.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11428 OF 2016
M/s. Swastik Estate.. Petitioner
v/s.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle-2, Thane & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Madhur Agarwal i/b Atul Jasani for the petitioner Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal a/w Ms. Swapna Tejale for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J.
DATED : 27[th] OCTOBER, 2016.
P.C.
1.This petition challenges the assessment orders passed under Sections 154 r/w Sections 143(a) and 143(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16.
2.Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that after filing of this petition, they have filed appeals from the impugned orders for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2015-16 before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
3.Mr. Chanderpal, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly on instructions states that the appeals of the petitioner filed with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) would be decided expeditiously. Mr. Chanderpal further states that as presently advised, the Revenue is not likely to adopt any coercive measures in respect of the pending appeals. However, in case the Revenue decides to take any coercive steps for recovery of its dues against the petitioner, the same would be done after giving appropriate notice to the petitioner on the same and hearing the petitioner.
4.In view of the statement made on behalf of the Revenue, Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition.
5.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.
(S.C. GUPTE, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.