Case LawHigh Court › Wp/251/2005 Of The State Of Maharashtra...

Wp/251/2005 Of The State Of Maharashtra And Ors v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors

High Court 02 Feb 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/251/2005 Of The State Of Maharashtra And Ors v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors
Date of order
02 Feb 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/251/2005 Of The State Of Maharashtra And Ors v. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence petition stands dismissed.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO. 251 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO. 251 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ..Petitioner. V/s. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.P.Deshpande, A.G.P. for the petitioner. Mr.R.V.Desai, senior counsel with Mrs.S.V.Bharucha for respondents. CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2005. DATED : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned A.G.P. for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking stay of the order of deposit directed to be made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune by its order dated 9/11/2004. The Tribunal by the above order has clearly recorded that Mr.D.V. Khilare, the General Manager, Government Milk Scheme, Pune, petitioner No.4 had categorically agreed before the Tribunal to the condition to deposit Rs.50 lakhs by two instalments, on the basis of which the recovery of the balance outstanding amount was stayed till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. The tax demand by the respondents is almost Rs.1.35 crores. In view of the fact that the petitioner had agreed to deposit Rs.50 lakhs by two instalments, we do not find anything erroneous and perverse in the order of the Tribunal. Hence petition stands dismissed. (S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
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