Case Law › High Court › Itxa/242/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/242/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai v. Shri Prakash K. Kothari

High Court 07 Aug 2018 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

07 Aug 2018

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/242/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Mumbai v. Shri Prakash K. Kothari, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

* 1/2 * ITXA-242-2009 (SR.64)7.8.2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income-tax-20MumbaiV/s. …..Appellant Shri. Prakash K. Kothari, Prop.M/s.P.K. Jewellers, Mumbai.….Respondent* * * * * None for the appellant. Ms. Madhavi Tav Anandi, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :M.S. SANKLECHA, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ. FRIDAY, 7TH AUGUST, 2018. P.C. :-1.None appeared in support of the Appeal when it was first called out. It was kept back. On being called thesecond time, again none appears in support of the Appeal. It appears, the appellant is not desirous of Rane * 2/2 * ITXA-242-2009 (SR.64)7.8.2018 prosecuting this Appeal. This particularly in view of thefact that Advocate and parties were put to notice on 27th July, 2018 that this Appeal would be taken up forconsideration today. Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.