Wp/1277/2016 Of Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 7 (1) (1) v. M/S. Goldman Sanchs (India) Securities Private Ltd
High Court
07 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/1277/2016 Of Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 7 (1) (1) v. M/S. Goldman Sanchs (India) Securities Private Ltd
Date of order
07 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/1277/2016 Of Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 7 (1) (1) v. M/S. Goldman Sanchs (India) Securities Private Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.In view of the above, the writ petition 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
Vina K.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1277 OF 2016
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1) (1), Mumbai.… Petitioner
V/s.
M/s. Goldman Sanchs (India) Securities Private Ltd.… Respondents
...
Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kamani for the petitioner.Mr. Madhur Agarwal i/b Mint and Confreres for the respondents.
…
CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA &
A. K. MENON, J.J.
DATE : 7[th] JULY, 2016.
P.C.:
1.This petition challenges order dated 7[th] August, 2015passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal extending the staygranted up to 11[th] March, 2015 for further period of six months from7[th] August, 2015 or the date of passing of the order in appeal pendingbefore the Tribunal, whichever is earlier.
2.The impugned order dated 7[th] August, 2015 has a life of180 days. Thus, the challenge to an order dated 7[th] August, 2015whose efficacy has come to an end before 7[th] February, 2016, isinfructuous.
1 of 2
Vina K.
3. We find that this petition has been filed on 11[th] February,2016 i.e. after the expiry of life of the order dated 7[th] August, 2015.This shows the casual manner in which the revenue has filed thepresent petition. It is made clear that if in future such futile petitionsare filed by the Revenue we may be compelled to impose costs onofficers of Revenue responsible for such petitions.
4.In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Noorder as to costs.
(A. K. MENON, J.)
(M. S. SANKLECHA, J.)
2 of 2
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.