Devang Lalji Shah, Mumbai 400 056 … v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 400 020 And Others …
High Court
03 Mar 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Devang Lalji Shah, Mumbai 400 056 … v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 400 020 And Others …
Date of order
03 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Devang Lalji Shah, Mumbai 400 056 … v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 400 020 And Others …, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 3.Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.216 OF 2016
Devang Lalji Shah, Mumbai 400 056 … Petitioner v/sThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Mumbai 400 020 and others … Respondents
Mr Vipul B. Joshi with Mr Nishit M. Gandhi for Petitioner. Mr Ashok N. Kotangale with Mr Arun D. Nagarjun for Respondents.
CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ. DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2016
B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
P.C.:-
1. This Petition challenges an order dated 26[th ]November 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (the Tribunal). By the impugned order, the Petitioner's Application for rectification of the order under section 252(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the act) seeking to rectify an order dated 13[th] November 2013 passed under section 256(1) of the Act was rejected.
2.After the Petition was argued for some time, Mr Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this Petition with liberty to file an Appeal under section 260A of the Act alongwith condonation of delay application.
3.Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (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.