Case LawHigh Court › Wp/26689/2016 Of M/S.toiling Masses Welf...

Wp/26689/2016 Of M/S.toiling Masses Welfare v. Income Tax Officer

High Court 01 Aug 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Wp/26689/2016 Of M/S.toiling Masses Welfare v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
01 Aug 2016
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/26689/2016 Of M/S.toiling Masses Welfare v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is 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 MADRAS Writ Petition No.26689 of 2016 & WMP.No.22914 of 2016 M/s.Toiling Masses Welfare Trust, rep.by its Trustee Mr.G.Ramakrishnan ...Petitioner The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions),Ward IV, No.121, Mahatma GandhiRoad, Chennai-34....Respondent PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for therecords of the respondent on its file in F.No.AAATT6230F andquash the impugned notice dated 14.7.2016. 2. The petitioner challenges an interim order passed by therespondent dated 14.7.2016, which, in fact, is consequent uponthe decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal inI.T.A.No.1597/Mds/2014 dated 6.11.2015 for the assessment year2010-11. The appeal filed by the respondent before the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal was allowed and the cross objection filedby the assessee was dismissed. Consequently, the respondentdirected the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.5,72,195/- andin default, the petitioner was informed that they would betreated as the assessee in default and action would be takenagainst recovery of the demand. 3. Though the order was passed by the Tribunal on 6.11.2015,it is stated that the petitioner has not challenged the same.There is no error in the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, the above WMP is also dismissed. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counselfor the petitioner, the time limit prescribed in the impugnedorder to effect payment on or before 22.7.2016 is extended till12.8.2016. 6. Except for the above relief, the writ petition standsdismissed in all other aspects. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarToThe Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward IV, No.121, MahatmaGandhiRoad, Chennai-34.1 cc to Mr.J.Balachander, Advocate, sr.43495WP.No.26689 of 2016 &WMP.No.22914 of 2016ctr cokra 02.08.2016
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