Wp/5629/2007 Of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
20 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/5629/2007 Of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
20 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/5629/2007 Of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIAND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5629 of 2007
Date: 20-03-2007.
Between :
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Secunderabad,rep.by its Secretary.
…..Petitioner
And
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-V &another.
…..Respondents.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BILAL NAZKIANDHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5629 of 2007
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Bilal Nazki)
Heard learned counsel for the parties. With their consent,the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
The petitioner claimed that he had liability to pay no tax, butan assessment was made and he was asked to pay a tax of morethan rupees fifteen crores. He filed an appeal, which is pending. In the meantime, he filed an application before the DeputyCommissioner of Income tax for stay, which was rejected. Anapplication was also filed before the Administrative Commissioner,who granted stay subject to payment of rupees ten crores. Theappeal has been filed two months before and it has not beendecided so far.
In this view of the matter, we feel that in the interest ofjustice, the petitioner be directed to pay 50% of liability. Out ofthis amount, 25% shall be paid within two weeks from today andthe other 25% shall be paid within eight weeks from today. Anyamounts already paid shall be given credit.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
20[th] March 2007.
_______________
BILAL NAZKI, J
_____________________________
NOOTY
RAMAMOHANA RAO, J
N.B:Order by wire at party’s cost. (b/o)
ajr
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.