In Amit Virendra Patel v. Income-Tax Offcerr Ward 23(3)(1)R Mumbai, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Digitallysigned bySHRADDHASHRADDHAKAMLESHKAMLESHTALEKARTALEKARDate:2023.02.2815:27:05+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O. CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3949 OF 2022
Amit Virendra Patel
… Petitioner
Versus
1. Income-tax Offcerr Ward 23(3)(1)r Mumbai
& 2 Ors.
…Respondents
*****
Mr.Akhileshwar Sharmar Advocate for respondents.
CORAM :
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR &SANDEEP V. MARNEr J.J.
22[nd] FEBRUARYr 2023.
DATE :
P C :
1.Not on Board. Mentioned.
2.A Praecipe has been moved for speaking to the minutes of theorder dated 24[th] January 2023 to the extent that the assessmentyear ought to have been refected in the order should be ‘2014-15’instead of ‘2013-14’.
3.Necessary corrections be carried out in the order dated 24[th]January 2023 to refect the assessment year as ‘2014-15’.
4.Praecipe is disposed of.
[ SANDEEP V. MARNEr J. ]
[DHIRAJ SINGH THAKURr J.]
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue