TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi HC Disposes Writ Petition on Income Tax Order, Grants Liberty for Revision</h1> <h3>SHRI PAWAN JHALANI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX</h3> SHRI PAWAN JHALANI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - TMI Issues:1. Writ petition seeking quashing of order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Stay on recovery of demand arising from the order.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court involved a writ petition filed by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, an advocate representing the petitioner/assessee who is a director in a company named North Delhi Bullion Traders Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner sought a writ, direction, or order to quash the order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, the petitioner requested a stay on the recovery of demand resulting from the aforementioned order as interim relief.The court noted that other directors of North Delhi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. had also approached the court with similar writ petitions, which were subsequently withdrawn with liberty granted to file revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Dr. Gupta presented an order dated 21.02.2022 from the writ petitions of other directors of the company, emphasizing the possibility of filing revision petitions under Section 264.Mr. Vipul Agarwal, representing Mr. Sanjay Kumar, the senior standing counsel, informed the court that the respondent/revenue had no objection if an order similar to the one passed in the previous writ petitions was issued in this case. Consequently, the court disposed of the present writ petition, granting liberty to the writ petitioner/assessee to file a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act.The judgment directed that if a revision petition is filed within three weeks of receiving a copy of the order, the concerned authority must rule on the petition without rejecting it on the grounds of limitation, as observed in the previous writ petitions. It was explicitly stated that since the court did not examine the matter on merits, the rights and contentions of the parties were left open for further consideration.Finally, all pending applications were closed, and the parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order, ensuring compliance with the court's directives.
TaxTMI 