Case Law › High Court › Avani Rasik Sontakke v. Income Tax Offce...

Avani Rasik Sontakke v. Income Tax Offcer,Ward-2, Panvel & 3 Ors

High Court 10 Jan 2023 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newas

Parties

Date of order

10 Jan 2023

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Allowed

Case summary

In Avani Rasik Sontakke v. Income Tax Offcer,Ward-2, Panvel & 3 Ors, the High Court (2023) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Digitallysigned bySHRADDHASHRADDHAKAMLESHKAMLESHTALEKARTALEKARDate:2023.01.1219:16:16+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 74 OF 2023INWRIT PETITION NO. 5165 OF 2022 Avani Rasik Sontakke… Applicant In the matter between : … Petitioner Avani Rasik Sontakke Versus 1.Income Tax Offcer,Ward-2, Panvel & 3 Ors. …Respondents ***** Mr.Riyaz Padvekar a/w. Mr.Tanzil Padvekar, Advocate forapplicant/petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE :10[th] JANUARY, 2023. P C : 1.This application is fled seeking amendment to the writpetition. 2.The application is allowed, subject to just exceptions. 3.Amendment to the petition be carried out in terms of the ‘Schedule of Amendment’, annexed to the interim application, which is taken on record and marked ‘X’. 4.Reply to the amended petition be fled within six weeks from today. 5.Interim application is disposed of. 6.List the petition on 21[st ]February 2023. 7.In the meantime, there shall be ad-interim relief in terms ofprayer clause (d) of the petition (amended as per ‘Schedule ofAmendment’). [ KAMAL KHATA, J. ] [DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.]

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA

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.