The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi v. Padmini Technologies Ltd
[Citation -2014-LL-0106-48]

Citation 2014-LL-0106-48
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi
Respondent Name Padmini Technologies Ltd.
Court SUPREME COURT
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/01/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: For M/S. Karanjawala Co.,Advs. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER In view of the orders passed by this Court on 09.01.2012, we are informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner-herein that the petitioner have already filed a review petition before the High Court. If that is so, it would be unnecessary to keep this matter pending in this Court. We request the High Court to consider the review petition, said to have been filed by the petitioner, on its merits and in accordance with law without reference to the period of limitation. If for any reason, the petitioner fails before the High Court, they would be at liberty to question the order passed by the High Court on merits as well as on the review petition.


ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).1186/2012 (From judgement and order dated 21/12/2010 in ITA No.1621/2010 of HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI) COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI Petitioner(s) VERSUS PADMINI TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Respondent(s) (With office report) Date: 06/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerjee,ASG Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mrs. Anita Sahani,Adv. for Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja,Adv. Mr. Karan dEv Chopra,Adv. Mr. Pallav Mongia,Adv. Mrs. Manik Karanjawala,Adv. for M/S. Karanjawala & Co.,Advs. UPON hearing counsel Court made following ORDER In view of orders passed by this Court on 09.01.2012, we are informed by learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for petitioner-herein that petitioner have already filed review petition before High Court. If that is so, it would be unnecessary to keep this matter pending in this Court. This special leave petition is, therefore, disposed of. We, however, request High Court to consider review petition, said to have been filed by petitioner, on its merits and in accordance with law without reference to period of limitation. If for any reason, petitioner fails before High Court, they would be at liberty to question order passed by High Court on merits as well as on review petition. (A.S. BISHT) (VINOD KULVI) A.R.-CUM-P.S. ASSTT. REGISTRAR Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi v. Padmini Technologies Ltd
Report Error