M/s. AUROLAB TRUST M/s Ravi Kannan, Varunranganathan.M,PonKarthikeyan.M,Rathi Yamuna.M,Priya Dharshini.T,S. VEERATHAVAMANI,J.JEYAKUMARAN vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore — WP(MD)/14300/2026
Case under Others Section Others. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF on 20th May 2026.
CNR: HCMD010679702026
e-Filing Number
19-05-2026
Filing Number
WP(MD)/41738/2026
Filing Date
19-05-2026
Registration No
WP(MD)/14300/2026
Registration Date
19-05-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Coram
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Tax/Tolls ( 150 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
20th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED OF
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s. AUROLAB TRUST M/s Ravi Kannan, Varunranganathan.M,PonKarthikeyan.M,Rathi Yamuna.M,Priya Dharshini.T,S. VEERATHAVAMANI,J.JEYAKUMARAN
Respondent(s)
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
ADMISSION (TAX)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-05-2026 | ADMISSION (TAX) |
Orders
Case Summary: WP(MD)/14300/2026 Aurolab Trust v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore The Madurai High Court disposed of Aurolab Trust's writ petition challenging an income tax demand notice of approximately ₹95 crores by imposing reasonable interim conditions while directing expedited appeal proceedings. The court directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within 12 weeks and required the petitioner to deposit 10% of the outstanding demand in two equal installments (5% each within successive three-week periods), with no further extensions permitted, while staying coercive action during this interim period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WP(MD)/14300/2026 Aurolab Trust v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore The Madurai High Court disposed of Aurolab Trust's writ petition challenging an income tax demand notice of approximately ₹95 crores by imposing reasonable interim conditions while directing expedited appeal proceedings. The court directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal within 12 weeks and required the petitioner to deposit 10% of the outstanding demand in two equal installments (5% each within successive three-week periods), with no further extensions permitted, while staying coercive action during this interim period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts