Case LawHigh Court › Mahesh v. Mirani V/S

Mahesh v. Mirani V/S

High Court 03 Feb 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mahesh v. Mirani V/S
Date of order
03 Feb 2016
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mahesh v. Mirani V/S, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.

Decision: Accordingly, Petition 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2472 OF 2015 Mahesh V. Mirani v/s The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(2) and another … Petitioner … Respondents Mr Prashant Pandit i/b Mr P.C. Tripathi for Petitioner. Mr Ashok Kotangale with Mrs Padma Divakar for Respondents. CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ. DATE : 3[rd] FEBRUARY, 2016 P.C.:- 1.This Petition inter alia seeks a direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-19(2) (Respondent No.1) to grant the Petitioner the excess amount paid as taxes in respect of AY 2001-02. 2.Mr Kotangale, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, at the very outset, states on instructions that the Respondent No.1 would pass an appropriate order on the Petitioner's claim for refund of the excess amount paid as taxes inter alia by taking into account the Petitioner's representation dated 13[th] July 2015 within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to state this would be in accordance with law after granting of personal hearing to the Petitioner. 3. Statement made by Mr Kotangale is accepted. 4.In view of the above, nothing survives in this Petition. Accordingly, Petition is disposed of in the above terms. (B.P.COLABAWALLA, 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.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan