Anant B. Shinde (Huf v. Ito-24(1)(3)Mumbai And Anr
High Court
04 Dec 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Anant B. Shinde (Huf v. Ito-24(1)(3)Mumbai And Anr
Date of order
04 Dec 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Anant B. Shinde (Huf v. Ito-24(1)(3)Mumbai And Anr, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.1517 OF 2013
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1732 OF 2013
Anant B. Shinde (HUF)....Petitioner.
vs.
ITO-24(1)(3)Mumbai and anr.
...Respondents.
Mr. K. Gopal and Mr. Jitendra Singh for the Appellant.Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Respondents.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND
M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
DATE :
04 December, 2013
PC:
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we condone the delay for 16 days in filing the Income Tax Appeal.
2)Notice of motion is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
3)So far as prayer clause (b)is concerned, the same will be considered at the the time of hearing of the Income Tax Appeal at the admission stage.
4)Subject to above clarification, the notice of motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) only and stands disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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