Itr/54/2000 Of Shri Mukesh D. Ambani v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
02 Sep 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itr/54/2000 Of Shri Mukesh D. Ambani v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
02 Sep 2016
Assessment year(s)
1986-87
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itr/54/2000 Of Shri Mukesh D. Ambani v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Decision: 4.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 54 OF 2000
Mukesh D. Ambani (HUF)
.. Applicant
v/s.
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax.. Respondent
Mr. P.C. Tripathi i/b Raj Darak for the applicant None for the respondent
P.C.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA &
S.C. GUPTE, J.J.
DATED : 2[nd] SEPTEMBER, 2016.
1.This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relates to Assessment Year 1986-87.
2.Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant assessee, at whose instance this Reference has been made by the Tribunal, states on instructions that the applicant assessee is not interested in pursuing the present Reference.
3.In the above view, the Reference is returned unanswered. However, it is made clear that the questions raised herein for our opinion are left open for consideration in an appropriate case, if not
already decided.
4.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(S.C. GUPTE, 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.