Case LawHigh Court › Wp/657/2011 Of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking C...

Wp/657/2011 Of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)

High Court 22 Feb 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/657/2011 Of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) 2(1)
Date of order
22 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp/657/2011 Of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation v. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) 2(1), the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LOD) NO.140 OF 2011 Sumitoma Mitsui Banking Corporation ..Petitioner. V/s. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (IT)-2(1)& Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. R. Murlidharan with A.K. Jasani for petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. Rule. 2. By consent of the parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3.Challenge in this petition is to the notice dated 30/3/2010 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 2004-05. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening the assessment, it is seen that the assessment is sought to be reopened only on the ground that the bad debts have not been proved to have become irrevocable. Counsel for the parties state that the aforesaid question is answered against the revenue by the Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2010] 323 I.T.R. 397(S.C.). 4.In this view of the matter, rule is made absolute. The notice dated 30/3/2010 and the draft reassessment dated 24/12/2010 pursuant to the notice dated 30/3/2010 are quashed and set aside with no order as to costs. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 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