Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai City 24, Mumbai v. Late Shri.vish...

Mumbai City 24, Mumbai v. Late Shri.vishnu B.patil, Mumbai

High Court 20 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City 24, Mumbai v. Late Shri.vishnu B.patil, Mumbai
Date of order
20 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Mumbai City 24, Mumbai v. Late Shri.vishnu B.patil, Mumbai, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1968 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1968 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1968 OF 2003 IN IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.654 OF 2003 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.654 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City 24, Mumbai .. Appellant V/s Late Shri.Vishnu B.Patil, Mumbai .. Respondent Mr.A.D.Kango i/by Mr.T.C.Kaushik for the Appellant. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN& CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN V.C.DAGA, JJ. DATE : 20th March, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The title of Notice of Motion clearly indicates that the Notice of Motion has been taken out against the deceased Respondent. The learned Counsel for the Respondent is unable to controvert the same and concedes that the Respondent has expired. Moreover the Notice of Motion is also addressed to the late Shri.Vishu B.Patil (Respondent). In view thereof, the Notice of Motion is not maintainable at all. Hence, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan