Case Law › High Court › Cao1249-16 v. N.i.t., Nagpur

Cao1249-16 v. N.i.t., Nagpur

High Court 02 Sep 2016 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · testcase

Parties

Date of order

02 Sep 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Cao1249-16 v. N.i.t., Nagpur, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.O. NO. 1249/2016 IN MCA ST. NO.12324/2016 IN I.T.L. NO. 15/2016(D)(THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR VERSUS N.I.T., NAGPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's ordersappearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anand Parchure and Shri B. Mohta, counsel for the applicant. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A NAIKAND V.M. DESHPANDE,JJ.SEPTEMBER 2, 2016. DATE: For the reasons stated in the application, thedelay of 27 days in filing the review application is condoned.The civil application is allowed and disposed of. M.C.A. ST. NO.12324/2016. No ground has been made out for reviewing theorder dated 21.04.2016. The review application stands rejected. APTE JUDGE JUDGE CERTIFICATE I certify that this Order uploaded is a true and correct copy oforiginal signed Order. Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on :06.09.2016.

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.