Mahesh v. Mirani … Petitioner V/Sthe Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(2) And Another
High Court
13 Jan 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mahesh v. Mirani … Petitioner V/Sthe Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(2) And Another
Date of order
13 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Mahesh v. Mirani … Petitioner V/Sthe Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-19(2) And Another, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2975 OF 2015
Mahesh V. Mirani … Petitioner v/sThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2) and another
… Respondents
Mr Prakash Pandian with Ms Prachi Pandit i/b Mr P.C. Tripathi for Petitioner. Mr Ashok Kotangale with Ms Padma Divakar for Respondents.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND
B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
DATE : 13[th] JANUARY, 2016
P.C.:-
1.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the Respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to dispose of the Petitioner's Rectification Application dated 3[rd] May 2012 under section 154 of the Income Tax Act for the AY 2003-04 expeditiously.
2.Mr Kotangale, learned counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, states that the Application would be disposed of within
four weeks from today in accordance with law and after following the principles of natural justice.
3.Statement accepted.
4.Petition disposed of in above terms.
(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.