Partly allowed

Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC4 May 2009WP/1351/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition against an Income Tax order, the High Court held the petitioner ineligible for a discounting amount refund per earlier precedent but entitled to a refund of retained transfer charges. The court directed the appropriate authority to refund the eligible sum within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs.1,50,000/- towards transfer charges directed to be paid within 12 days.

Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.1351 OF 1993

¶2

 Hindusthan Ciba Geigy Ltd ... Petitioner

¶3

vs

¶4

 The Union of India & ors
 .. Respondents

¶5

 Ms.Priti A.Dhotre i.b M.M.Legal Associates
 for Petitioner.
 Mr.R.Asokan for Respondents

¶6

CORAM: F.I.Rebello and
 J.H.Bhatia, JJ
 DATED: 4th May,2009
P.C.

¶7

 1. This petition is directed against an order
 dated 29th June, 1993 made under section 269 UD(1)
 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The parties are at idem
 that the property has been sold and the petitioner
 have received the consideraion.

¶8

 2. The entire dispute is in respect of two
 amounts one being Rs.1,04,502/- which is the
 discounting amount and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-
 towards the petitioner’s share of transfer charges
 which was retained by respondent nos.2 to 4.

¶9

 3. In so far as the discounting amount is
 concerned in the sum of Rs.1,04,502/- in view of

¶10

 the order of this Court, in Rameshbhai J.Patel vs.

¶11

Union of India 247 ITR 182 (S.C.) the petitioner

¶12

 would not be entitled to the said amount.

¶13

 4. However, in so far as the transfer caharges ae
 concerned in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in view of
 the judgment of this Court in Polycom Papers Ltd

¶14

vs Union of India 253 ITR 182 (Bom) and upheld by
 Supreme Court, the petitioner would be entitled to
 refund of the said amount. That amounnt is
 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 22nd
 October, 1993 was directed to be invested in a
 fixed deposit of a nationalised bank.

¶15

 5. On the petitioner producing a certified copy
 of this order, the appropriate authority before
 whom the amount is deposited to refund the said
 amount at any rate not later than 12 weeks from
 today.

¶16

 Rule made partly absolute accordingly.

¶17

 However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶18

{ J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J }

Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Msc Agency (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner of Customs ( Imports ) Mumbai Vs Kazi Hussain Shaikh Dawood

International Aircharter Operation (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Paresh Patinum Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hotel Sahil Ltd. Vs a.K.Thata and Anr.

Apcotex Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income TAX-10 and 2 Ors.