Wp/713/2006 Of R.k.bharadwaj v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik And Ors
High Court
11 Jul 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/713/2006 Of R.k.bharadwaj v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik And Ors
Date of order
11 Jul 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/713/2006 Of R.k.bharadwaj v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik And Ors, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.
Decision: It would be open for the petitioner toproduce additional material before the AssistantCommissioner in support of his contention and itwould also be open for the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the issue in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. .In the result, impugned order is set...
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 BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTIION
WRIT PETITION NO.713 OF2006 .
Shri K.R. Bharadwaj.V/s.
The Commissioner of Income tax & ors.... Respondents.
.. Petitioner.
Mr. M.K. Kuklkarni for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiv Motariya for the respondents.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED : 11.7 .2006.
P.C. :
----
.Heard.
.Rule returnable forthwith.
.
respondents.
Mr.Motariya waives service on behalf of the
.In this petition, petitioner is challenging
the order dated 12.9.2005 passed under section 179
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).
.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra State, Bombay,showing change of name from Premier ElectrodesPrivate Ltd. to Premier Electrodes Ltd. which issufficient to indicate that the petitioner was the
of a public limited company and not of a private
Ltd. company.
.Per contra, learned Counsel appearing forthe Revenue submits that the income tax return filed
by the petitioner shows that it is a private Ltd.
company and public is not substantially interested.
.Having heard rival parties, in view of the
question raised by the petition, it would benecessary to set aside the impugned order and remitthe matter to the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Circle-1, Nashik, for considerationafresh. It would be open for the petitioner toproduce additional material before the AssistantCommissioner in support of his contention and itwould also be open for the adjudicating authority to
adjudicate the issue in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible.
.In the result, impugned order is set aside.
The matter is remitted back to the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Nashik todecide the notice under section 179 of the I.T.Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
this order.
.
with no order as to costs.
Rule is made absolute in terms of this order
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR,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.