Case Law › High Court › In The Matter Between Ganpat Mukundrao M...

In The Matter Between Ganpat Mukundrao Murkute v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer Circle – 4, Pune & Anr

High Court 04 Jan 2019 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

04 Jan 2019

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

Case summary

In In The Matter Between Ganpat Mukundrao Murkute v. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer Circle – 4, Pune & Anr, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

DDR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 913 OF 2018 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2391 OF 2018 Ganpat Mukundrao Murkute ..ApplicantOrg.Appellant IN THE MATTER BETWEENGanpat Mukundrao Murkutevs.Asst. Commissioner of Income TaxOfficer Circle – 4, Pune & anr. ..Appellant ..Respondents …......... Mr. Ruturaj Gurjar for applicant/org. Appellant.Mr. Sham Walve for respondents. …......... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 4[th] JANUARY, 2019 P.C.: This Notice of Motion is for condonation of delay of64 days in filing the present Appeal. 2.For the reasons mentioned in Affidavit-in-support, delay of 64 days in filing the present Appeal is condoned. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 3.Notice of Motion is disposed of. (M.S. KARNIK, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

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

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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.