Wp/918/2005 Of Tanna And Modi v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xxv And Ors. Mumbai
High Court
19 Jul 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/918/2005 Of Tanna And Modi v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xxv And Ors. Mumbai
Date of order
19 Jul 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/918/2005 Of Tanna And Modi v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xxv And Ors. Mumbai, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere and the Petition stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.918 OF 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M/s.Tanna & Modi
Mumbai ...Petitioner.
V/s.
The Commissioner of Income-Tax
Mumbai, CITY-XXV & Ors. ...Respondents.
Mr.Pramod K. Parida for the Petitioners.
Mr.Pankaj Kappor for the Respondent.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 19th July, 2005.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
DATE : 19th July, 2005.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the
Respondents. By this Petition, the Petitioner is
challenging the order dated 13th May, 2004 passed by the
Respondent, the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai City
XXV, refusing to entertain the application under the
Voluntary Disclosure Scheme. There is no dispute that
Mr.K.M.Tanna, partner of the Petitioner partnership firm
is a common partner in almost 4 partnership firms. The
learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Shivram on
instructions from Mr.K.M.Tanna states that he is a
partner of four firms and all the four firms have their
office at 107-108, Super Shopping Complex, Bajaj Cross
Road, Kandivali West, Bombay. There is also no dispute
that the raid had taken place at that office premises
: 2 :
and in pursuance of the said search and seizure action
at the said common office premises on 18th April, 95,
the Petitioner thereafter had made a declaration of Rs.
1.2 crores as undeclared on money. Thereafter, Mr.Tanna
made a disclosure that it would be of some other firm.
The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent
is that in the application for Voluntary Disclosure
Scheme made on 26th December, 1996 in which he had
failed to disclose all the relevant material. Over and
above, the Petitioner was called upon to furnish details
as to the connection with regard to the firms. But even
till date from Mr.Tanna all details and particulars of
parternership firms are not forthcoming. Under these
circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere and the
Petition stands dismissed.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.H.BHATIA, J.)
(J.H.BHATIA, 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.