SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 504

K.R.SHRIRAM, AMIT B.BORKAR
Reliance Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. P.C. Tripathi, Mr. Amit Mathur, Mr. Dhruv Nyayadhish and Mr. Mehul Talera i/b Mr. Raj Darak.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Ms. Smita Thakur, Mr. Pranav Thackur, Ms. Mohinee Chougule and Mr. Arjun Gupta.

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document does not explicitly discuss or specify the role or status of private counsel in criminal matters from the prosecution side. The focus of the document is primarily on the procedural aspects related to the institution of prosecution, the interpretation of when a prosecution is deemed to be instituted, and the applicability of certain legislative provisions to individuals involved in criminal proceedings. There are references to the participation of advocates and legal representatives, but no specific mention or detailed discussion about private counsel representing the prosecution or their role in criminal cases. Therefore, there is no paragraph number in the document that directly addresses or provides information about private counsel in criminal proceedings from the prosecution side.


JUDGMENT :

K.R. Shriram, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard and disposed at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.

Heard, Shri Nankani, Shri Anil Singh and considered the pleadings and written submissions.

2. Petitioner originally filed the petition challenging the communication dated 25th January 2021 withdrawing the earlier communication dated 21st October 2020 issued by the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. By this communication dated 21st October 2020, petitioner was informed that they are eligible for resolution of tax disputes under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV Act). According to petitioner, relying on this communication petitioner had filed several applications for resolution of tax disputes. It is petitioner’s case that the stand of respondents is contrary to the plain language of Section 9(c) of the DTVSV Act.

3. Petitioner is desirous of availing the benefit of DTVSV Act with respect to certain pending income tax litigations before various appellate levels. By an application dated 15th April 2020, petitioner sought clarification from the revenue with respect to its eligibility under t

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                        Please visit our Training & Support
                        Center or Contact Us for assistance

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                        whatsapp-icon Back to top