Dismissed

Cadbury (India) Ltd. (Now Known as M/S. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX-5(1)(2), and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2016WP/622/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging attachment notices under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue admitted that amounts were inadvertently withdrawn and subsequently credited back, and the attachments were vacated. Consequently, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition on instructions, which was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.

Cadbury (India) Ltd. (Now Known as M/S. Mondelez India Foods Pvt… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

531-16-WP-l=.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 531 OF 2016

¶4

M/s. Cadbury (India) Ltd. (now known as M/s. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

Foods Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax 5(1)(2) & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Jehangir D. Mistry, Senior Counsel a/w Nishant Thakkar and Jasmin Amalsadvala i/b PDS Legal for the petitioner Mr. N.C. Mohanty for respondent no.1

¶7

Mr. Nitesh Jain a/w Shamika Haldipurkar i/b Ameya Gokhale of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas for the respondent no.2

¶8

CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J. DATED : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2016.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the attachment Notices dated 22^nd February, 2016 under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, served upon the respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 banks. The petitioner has also made a grievance that the amounts which were attached with respondent no.2 were withdrawn by the respondent Revenue to the extent of Rs.93.72 crores. This without having followed the procedure laid down by this Court in UTI Mutual Funds Vs. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. 345 ITR 71 .

¶11

Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Revenue, on instructions,

1 of 2

Uday S. Jagtap

531-16-WP-l=.doc

states that in view of the law laid down in UTI Mutual Funds (Supra) the withdrawal of the amounts from the attached bank accounts without having given any Notice to the petitioner, was a mistake. Mr. Mohanty further states that the amounts of Rs.93.72 crores withdrawn from the respondent no.2 bank have been credited back to the petitioner's account with respondent no.2 bank. Mr. Mohanty further states that the attachment of the petitioner's accounts in respondent nos. 2 and 3 banks have also been vacated.

¶16

We would expect that the Department to follow the law as laid down by this Court scrupulously and not subject the Assessee to unnecessary harassment.

¶17

In view of the fact that the amounts have been credited to the petitioner's bank account and the attachments of the bank accounts are vacated, Mr. Mistry, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the petition.

¶18

The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶19

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

¶20

2 of 2

¶21

Uday S. Jagtap

Cadbury (India) Ltd. (Now Known as M/S. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX-5(1)(2), and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cadbury (India) Ltd. (Now Known as M/S. Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX-5(1)(2), and 3 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

Goldie Sud Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Mumbai Vs M/S. Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Central 1, Mumbai Vs M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd. Mumbai

Ajcon Global Service Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax 2 (3) and Ors.

Gorai (1) Deep Chs Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.