Wp/39963/2017 Of M/S Neo Diamonds 63 v. The Director General Of Income Tax
High Court
27 Nov 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/39963/2017 Of M/S Neo Diamonds 63 v. The Director General Of Income Tax
Date of order
27 Nov 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/39963/2017 Of M/S Neo Diamonds 63 v. The Director General Of Income Tax, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
W.P.No.39963 of 2017
Date: 27.11.2017
Between: M/s. Neo Diamonds 63, Kanchawala Building, 1[st] floor, Office No.3, Dhanji Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400003, rep. by its Managing Partner Dhawal Chimanlal Shah, S/o.Chimanlal Mohanlal Shah, Aged about 28 years, R/o.Mumbai, Maharashtra … Petitioner And The Director General of Income Tax … Hyderabad and two others Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. M.Srikanth : Counsel for the Respondents Mr.J.V.Prasad, Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department
The Court made the following:
Order : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)
The writ petition is filed for the following substantial relief:
“to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 3[rd]respondent in seizing the Diamond Ornaments which form part of the Stock in Trade on 14.11.2017 from the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the proviso to Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequently directing the 3[rd] respondent to accept the unconditional and irrevocable Bank guarantee from the petitioner and release the diamond ornaments seized immediately and pass such other order or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.
2. At the hearing, Mr.M.Srikanth, learned counsel for the
petitioner, requested for permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with proper averments and by impleading proper respondents.
3. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn, with
liberty to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.49555/2017 filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed as infructuous.
______________________
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
_____________________
(T.Amarnath Goud, J)
CVNR,J & TA, J W.P.No.39963 of 2017 Date: 27.11.2017
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.