9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent: Mr. N.C. Mohanty,. PC:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition challenges an order dated 27 February 2023 made under section 127 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the IT Act), transferring the petitioner's case from the jurisdictional officer in Mumbai to his counterpart in New Delhi. 3. Mr Naniwadekar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, fairly placed on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate rank is not equivalent to an agreement as contemplated under section 127 (2) of the IT Act. In support of this contention, he relied upon Herambh Shelke v. ML Karmarkar [2018] 96 taxmann.com 308 (Bom)., and Noorul Islam Educational Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax-I [2016] 76 taxmann.com 144 (SC). 5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondents contended that the issue raised in the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh our order dated 7 January 2025 in the case of Laxminath Investment & Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra.). The reasoning in the Laxminath Investment & Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (supra.), including in particular the observations in paragraphs 15 to 20, would clearly apply, and based upon the same, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. Incidentally, even the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at centralisation was deemed essential in matters belonging to the Pacific Group or in matters where parties had nexus with the evasion carried out by the Pacific Group, resulting in considerable loss of revenue to the Exchequer. Therefore, consolidation was necessary on merits, and transfers were ordered with a view to such consolidation. By attempting to elevate the plea now raised to the status ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atters, dismissed Writ Petition No. 2277 of 2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also rejected the Special Leave Petition against the said order. Besides, the SLP draft is not produced before us to see whether the ground was raised to challenge the judgment now sought to be distinguished. Therefore, based on the distinction now sought to be made, it would not be appropriate to take a different view. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
