Compliance Of The Decision Of The Supreme Court In The Matter Ofrajnish v. Neha & Another[1] Were Filed Without Annexing The Bankstatements, The Income-Tax Returns Of Parties And Other Mandatorydocuments
High Court
16 Jan 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Compliance Of The Decision Of The Supreme Court In The Matter Ofrajnish v. Neha & Another[1] Were Filed Without Annexing The Bankstatements, The Income-Tax Returns Of Parties And Other Mandatorydocuments
Date of order
16 Jan 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Compliance Of The Decision Of The Supreme Court In The Matter Ofrajnish v. Neha & Another[1] Were Filed Without Annexing The Bankstatements, The Income-Tax Returns Of Parties And Other Mandatorydocuments, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal under Section 24 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONINTERIM APPLICATION NO.556 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9165 OF 2023
Sudhanshu Samrat Prasad
VersusKavita Sudhanshu Prasad
…Applicant/Petitioner
…Respondent
Mr. Santosh S Musale, for the Applicant/Original Petitioner.Mr. Pavan S. Patil, with Mr. Nitin Jagtap, Mr. Yash Gawade, for the Respondent.
PC:-
CORAMDr. Neela Gokhale, J.DATED:16th January 2024
1.The Applicant/Original Petitioner seeks recall of the orderdated 3rd January 2024 remanding the issue back to the FamilyCourt, Pune with a request to hear and adjudicate the application forinterim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 afresh.
2.The order of remand was passed while observing that theaffidavits of income and expenditure required to be filed in
compliance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter ofRajnish v. Neha & Another[1] were filed without annexing the bankstatements, the income-tax returns of parties and other mandatorydocuments.
3.I have gone through the application for recall of order. Thereis no ground made out in the application. There is no error on theface of record of the order sought to be recalled. The interimapplication is dismissed.
4.There will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
1(2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324
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.