Wp/2237/2005 Of M/S.swati Minerals v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) And Ors
High Court
11 Jul 2006 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/2237/2005 Of M/S.swati Minerals v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) And Ors
Date of order
11 Jul 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/2237/2005 Of M/S.swati Minerals v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) And Ors, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: P.C. :---- .In this petition, action under section 147 Assessing Officer proceeded to assess and pass assessment order on 31.3.2005. .Against the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending before the appellate authority. . petitioner has already ava...
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2234 OF 2005.WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2235 OF 2005.WITHWRIT PETITION NO.2236 OF 2005.WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2237 OF 2005.WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2238 OF 2005.
M/s Swati Minerals.... Petitioner.
V/s.
The Commissioner of Income Tax...Respondent.
Mr. M.K. Kulkarni for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiv Motariya for the respondents.( in all matters).
CORAM : V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED : 11.7 .2006.
P.C. :----
.In this petition, action under section 147
Assessing Officer proceeded to assess and pass
assessment order on 31.3.2005.
.Against the aforesaid order of the Assessing
Officer, petitioner has preferred an appeal which is
pending before the appellate authority.
.
petitioner has already availed an alternate remedy,
we do not see any reason to entertain this petition.
.In the result, petition is, dismissed,keeping all rival contentions open for being
canvassed before the appellate authority. No order
as to costs.
(V.C.DAGA,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