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.)
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.