Amk_ v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr
High Court
08 Dec 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Amk_ v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr
Date of order
08 Dec 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Amk_ v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Amk
(265) WP 961-99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 961 OF 1999
P.C.I. Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
.. Petitioner
Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr... Respondents
Mr. Prakash Pandit a/w. Mr. P. C. Tripathi i/b P. P. Prabhu for the Petitioner.None for the Respondent.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI. A. NAIK AND
MR. RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.DATE : 8 th DECEMBER, 2017.
P. C.:
Shri Pandit, the learned counsel holding for Shri P. C. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite the efforts to seek the instructions from the petitioner about the subsequent development in the writ petition that was filed in the year 1999, the petitioner has not responded. It is stated that the counsel would not be able to work out the matter in the absence of instructions.
In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the writ petition with no order
as to costs.
[RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.]
[SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK 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