Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Allahabad HC Orders GSTN to Modify Portal within 1 Month to Allow Appeals Even When Disputed Tax Shows Nil
 Statement Recorded By High Courts Can't Be Later Contradicted By Counsel : Supreme Court

Saurabh Banerjee Vs. Income Tax Officer
May, 06th 2015
$~39
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 4138/2015 & CM No. 7507/2015 (Stay)
       SAURABH BANERJEE                         ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr Abhinav Vashisht, Sr. Adv. with Mr
                   Rajat Joseph & Mr Sumeet Nagpal, Advs.

                            versus

       INCOME TAX OFFICER                         ..... Respondent
                     Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing
                     Counsel with Mr Abhishek Sharma, Adv.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
               ORDER
%              27.04.2015

1.     The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 08.04.2015
issued by the income tax officer.
2.     Broadly, by virtue of this communication, the income tax officer has
put the petitioner to notice that the information sought by his wife; which is
an attested copy of the final assessment order passed in his case for
assessment year 2012-13, would be supplied, in case he prefers no objection.
2.1    The said communication, however, gives an opportunity to the
petitioner to file his objections.
2.2 Admittedly, the petitioner has filed his objections vide order dated 14.04.2015. 3. Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, who appears on advance notice on behalf of the respondent, says that an appropriate order will be passed by the said W.P.(C) 4138/2015 Page 1 of 2 authority and the order will be communicated to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition and the application are disposed of with a direction to the respondent to pass an appropriate order on the objections raised by the petitioner vide his communication dated 14.04.2015. 5. However, it is made clear, that the said order will not be given effect to for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to examine the order and, if necessary, take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit in accordance with law.
6. It is also made clear, the period of two weeks will commence from the date when the order is served on the petitioner. 7. Dasti. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J APRIL 27, 2015 kk W.P.(C) 4138/2015 Page 2 of 2
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2025 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting