Case LawHigh Court › Wp/137/2018 Of Multi Commodity Exchange...

Wp/137/2018 Of Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(3) And 2 Ors

High Court 23 Feb 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/137/2018 Of Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(3) And 2 Ors
Date of order
23 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
2011-12, 2010-11
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/137/2018 Of Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(3) And 2 Ors, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: 5.Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed.

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

Jsn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 137 OF 2018 Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd.… Petitioner VersusThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & …RespondentsOrs. Mr. Riyaz Padvekar, with Mr. Girish Dave, Mr. Mandar Vaidya and Mr. T. Padvekar, i/b Dave & Padvekar Associates for the Petitioner.Mr. N.C. Mohanty, for the Respondents. PC:- CORAM:M.S.SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.DATED:23RD FEBRUARY 2018 1.This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dated 1st June 2017 issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The impugned notice seeks to re-open an assessment for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.We have today by a separate order dismissed the Petitioner's Writ Petition bearing No. 2739 of 2017. Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017 was filed by the same Petitioner challenging the reopening notice dated 30 March 2013 seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11. 3.The learned counsel for the parties state in unison that the facts in this Petition are identical to the facts in Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017 and the reasons indicated in the order passed therein today would apply to the facts of the present case. In the above view, for the reasons indicated in our order passed today in Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017, the present Petition is also dismissed. 4.At this stage Mr. Padavekar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks stay of this order for a period of six weeks from today as made when we passed the order today in Writ Petition No.2739 of 2017. This prayer is rejected for the same reasons as recorded in Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2017 passed by us today. 5.Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. ) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 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