Dismissed

Universal Textile Waterproof Co.(India) v. Rahul Singhania

Bombay HC9 Jul 2014WP/616/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging income tax notices, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the petition upon the respondent-revenue furnishing a copy of the assessment order dated 19 March 2013 without raising any limitation objections. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Granted liberty to withdraw the petition

Universal Textile Waterproof Co.(India) Vs Rahul Singhania — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2014)

ASN

1/2

WP-616-14

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.616 OF 2014

¶6

Universal Textile Waterproof Co. (India) vs.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Rahul Singhania, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors. ..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. J.D. Mistry, Senior Advocate i/by Sameer G. Dalal for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mrs. S. V. Bharucha for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : M. S. SANKLECHA AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : O9 JULY 2014

¶12

PC:

¶13

The petitioners have challenged a notice of demand dated 17 December 2013 issued under Schedule II of the Income Tax Act,1961 (“the Act”) and the notice dated 3 January 2014 issued under Section 226(3) of the Act.

¶14

The petitioners contend that they are at a loss to know the basis of the impugned notice dated 17 December 2013 and 3 January 2014. In the affidavit in reply it has been stated that an assessment order was passed on 19 March 2013 relating to Assessment year 201011.

¶15

On the last date, Mr. J.D. Mistry, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that in case the respondents furnish a copy of the assessment order dated 19 March 2013 which is the basis of the impugned notices, the petitioner would withdraw this

ASN

2/2

WP-616-14

petition and take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law provided the revenue does not take up the issue of limitation in respect of any proceedings adopted by the petitioner.

¶20

Ms. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-revenue, on instructions, states that the if the petitioners come and collect a copy of the assessment order dated 19 March 2013 from their office in the course of one week from today, the revenue would also not raise any objection regarding limitation taking the date on which a copy of the order is taken by the petitioners as the commencement of the period for computing the period of limitation to approach the higher authorities under the Act. Further she submitted that the attachment as of today should continue till further orders are passed thereon.

¶21

On the basis of the above statement by Mrs. Bharucha on behalf of the revenue, Mr. Mistry, learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to withdraw the petition. Liberty granted. It is made clear that we have not examined the merits of the contentions of the respective parties.

¶22

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

¶23

Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.

¶24

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶25

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

Universal Textile Waterproof Co.(India) v. Rahul Singhania

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Universal Textile Waterproof Co.(India) v. Rahul Singhania

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Dr. Ramesh Dinkar Samarth Vs the Union of India 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.

plasticotes investments pvt.ltd9EARDLIER Known as Chimay Investmnets Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner or Income-Tax-Ii