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.)
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.