Mahendra P.kanakia v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
High Court
15 Apr 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mahendra P.kanakia v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Date of order
15 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
1992-1993
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Mahendra P.kanakia v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Decision: Petition stands disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.685 OF 2008
WRIT PETITION NO.685 OF 2008
Mahendra P.Kanakia .. Petitioner
Vs.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal .. Respondent
Mr.A.K.Sharma with Mr.V.S.Hadade for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 15th April, 2008
DATE : 15th April, 2008
DATE : 15th April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
this Petition, the Petitioner is challenging an order
dated 14.08.2007 passed by the ITAT, whereby the ITAT
has rejected the Misc.Application No.438/2007 of the
Assessee, thereby declining recall of the earlier order
of the Tribunal in ITA No.3542/Mum/2001 dated 11.04.2007
for the Assessment Year 1992-1993. We do not find any
error or illegality in the said order. However the
Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid
order of the Tribunal dated 11.04.2007.
2. Petition stands disposed of.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.
EaseValue