Disposed

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) 1 (1) and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014WP/1639/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging the rejection of a stay application. Instead of deciding the substantive issue, the Court directed the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) to adjudicate the pending stay application and restrained the revenue from initiating coercive proceedings for two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) to decide the stay application; restrained revenue from coercive proceedings for two weeks.

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) 1 (1) and 3 Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

wp1764.14

Rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1764 of 2014

¶6

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn.. .. Petitioner vs.

¶7

Dy.Director of Income Tax (Exemption) & ors .. Respondents

¶8

Mr.Mihir C.Naniwadekar for Petitioner Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ

¶10

DATED : 08 JULY, 2014

¶11

P. C.

¶12

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 2.6.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer rejecting the petitioner's application for stay of the assessment order dated 20.2.2014 till the disposal of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals).

¶13

The assessment order dated 20.2.2014 has raised a demand of Rs.705.42 crores upon the petitioner for the A.Y.2011-12.

¶14

Rng 2 wp1764.14

¶15

On rejection of the stay by the Assessing Officer on 2.6.2014 the petitioner has on 11.6.2014 filed an application for stay before the Commissioner of Income Tax i.e.Director of Income Tax (Exemption) seeking a stay of the demand of the assessment order dated 20.2.2014. This stay is sought till the disposal of the petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

¶16

Mr.Suresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the revenue states that the Director of Income tax (Exemption) would hear and decide the petitioner's stay application dated 11.6.2014.

¶17

We accept the statement of Mr.Suresh Kumar which is reasonable. We direct the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) to decide the petitioner's application for stay dated 11.6.2014 in accordance with law. However, we make it clear that till such time as the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) decides the application dated 11.6.2014, the revenue would not adopt any coercive proceedings against the petitioner and for a period of two weeks from the date of service of the decision on the petitioner.

¶18

wp1764.14

¶19

Rng 3

¶20

Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as

¶21

to costs.

¶22

(G.S.KULKARNI, J) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J)

¶23

Rng 4 wp1764.14

¶24

Rng 5 wp1764.14

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) 1 (1) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption) 1 (1) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ramesh Dinkar Samarth Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Shri Amit Jhaveri Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Nishith Madanlal Desai Vs Commissioner of Income TAX-11

Geltee Pvt. Ltd., Vs Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Avantika Pratapsingh Morarji Vs Ashwini Kumar Commissioner of Income Tax CITY-5, Mumbai and Anr.

Gagan Trading Company Limited Vs the Income-Tax Officer, 5(1)(2), Mumbai and 2 Ors.