Case LawHigh Court › Wp/13098/2009 Of M/S. Mali Florez Limite...

Wp/13098/2009 Of M/S. Mali Florez Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 31 Aug 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/13098/2009 Of M/S. Mali Florez Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
31 Aug 2010
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/13098/2009 Of M/S. Mali Florez Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAOAND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13098 of 2009 Dated:31.08.2010 Between: M/s. Mali Florex Limited, A Public LimitedCompany, having its office at 8-2-411, LumbiniRock Castle, Apt # Gf6, Road No.6, Banajara Hills,Hyderabad – 36, rep., by its Managing DirectorMr. S. Narayana Reddy, S/o.Late Hanumanth Reddy,Aged: 38 years, R/o.8-2-411, Lumbini Rock Castle,Apt # Gf6, Road No.6, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 36And another .. Petitioner And Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 6, 7[th] Avenue, Ayakar Bhavan,Bhasheerbagh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHANWRIT PETITION No.13098 of 2009 ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondentsto credit a sum of Rs.2.30 crores paid by the State Bank of Hyderabadto the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central Circle) towards taxliability for the assessment year 2008-09. Be it noted, the said amountwas the subject matter of an order under Section 132(3) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (hereafter called as the Act). This Court ordered noticeto the respondents. When the matter is called today, the Senior Standing Counselfor Income Tax submits that the amount of Rs.2.30 crores lying in thePublic Deposit account was adjusted in the regular account for theyear 2008-09. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitionerdoes not press the writ petition and seeks permission to withdraw theWrit Petition with liberty to agitate the question of levy of interest underSection 234(b) and (c) of the Act, especially with reference to the timeof adjustment of the amount. Giving liberty to do so, the Writ Petition isdismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 31.08.2010KH
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