Dismissed

Intimate Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Madras HC28 Feb 2020REV.APPL/34/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a review application challenging an order requiring the taxpayer to pay interest of Rs. 25 Lakhs before stay of appeal. The Court noted that the total demand included significant interest and affirmed the original order based on peculiar facts.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Intimate Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Joint Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

Rev.Appl.No.34 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 28.02.2020

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶8

Rev.Appl.No.34 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.5021 of 2020 Intimate Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd., 517-519, Tiruppur - Kottamedu High Road, Nandhivaram Village, Guduvancheri - 603 202. ... Applicant Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle - 2 (2), Chennai. ... Respondent PRAYER : Review Application filed under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code

¶9

read with Order XLVIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to review the Order dated

¶10

10.01.2020 passed in T.C.A.No.17 of 2020 on the file of this Court.

¶11

For Applicant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, Senior Standing Counsel.

¶13

1/4

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

Rev.Appl.No.34 of 2020

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,)

¶18

This Review Application has been filed to review the Order passed by this

¶19

Court on 10.01.2020 in T.C.A.No.17 of 2020 wherein this Court had directed the applicant / appellant to pay a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs within a period of four weeks

¶20

from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order and that on such payment, there will be an order of stay till the disposal of the appeal.

¶21

2.Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr.Karthick Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶22

total amount demanded is Rs.1,98,90,582/-,in which the major portion is interest. Further, out of base tax amount of Rs.82,41,859/-, the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.75 Lakhs. The balance amount which has to be paid is only interest. Therefore, he seeks to review the Judgment passed by this Court.

¶23

2/4

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

Rev.Appl.No.34 of 2020

¶26

4.However, this Court is not inclined to review the order and this application

¶27

is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is made clear that the condition imposed by this Court was based on the peculiar

¶28

facts and circumstances of this case.

¶29

(N.K.K.,J.) (P.V.,J.)
28.02.2020
ay
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No

¶30

3/4

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

Rev.Appl.No.34 of 2020

¶33

N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. AND P.VELMURUGAN, J.

¶34

¶35

Rev.Appl.No.34 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.5021 of 2020

¶36

Dated:28.02.2020

¶37

4/4

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

Intimate Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intimate Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Vs T.R.Balasubramanian

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs R.R.Donnelley India Outsources

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Rane Holdings Ltd.

N.P.Sudha Vs Karuppusamy

Ceedee Yes Standard Towers Private Ltd., Vs R.Seethalakshmi IAS

K. Kumaravel (Died) Vs P.C.Vethagiri