Wp/2787/2017 Of Sun Tan Trading Co.ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai And 2 Ors
High Court
15 Feb 2018 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/2787/2017 Of Sun Tan Trading Co.ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai And 2 Ors
Date of order
15 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/2787/2017 Of Sun Tan Trading Co.ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai And 2 Ors, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
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 JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2017
Sun Tan Trading Co. Ltd.VersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Ors.
… Petitioner
…Respondents
Mr. Paras Savla, for the Petitioner.Mr. P.C. Chhotaray, for the Respondents.
CORAM:M.S.SANKLECHA &RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.DATED:15TH FEBRUARY 2018
PC:-
1.This Petition challenges the notice dated 31st March2017
issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) seeking to re-open the assessment relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. Mr. Chhotaray, the learned counsel for the Revenue – Respondents on instructions states that, the Revenue has decided to drop re-assessment proceedings consequent to notice dated 31st March 2017.
2.In view of the statement made on behalf of the Revenue, Mr. Savla, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to withdraw the Petition. The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. )
(M.S.SANKLECHA, 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