Case LawHigh Court › Order v. The Appropriate Authority Incom...

Order v. The Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department, Ahemadabad And Others

High Court 15 Jul 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Order v. The Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department, Ahemadabad And Others
Date of order
15 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Order v. The Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department, Ahemadabad And Others, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Order 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. C.A.O.NO. 2165/2015 IN M.C.A.ST.NO.20606/2015 IN W.P.NO. 327/1994.M/s. Jyoti & Surendra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Nagpur. -VERSUS- The Appropriate Authority Income Tax Department, Ahemadabad and others. Office notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Ordersor directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : JULY 15, 2016. Heard Shri W.T. Mathew, learned Counsel for the applicant. 2.Prayer is to condone delay of 169 days in filing application for review of the judgment. 3.Misc. Civil Application St. No. 20606/2015 is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 30.03.2015. Learned Counsel submits that though specifically contention about incorrect use of FSI or then errors committed by the Authorities while working out market price were pressed into service, this Court has not recorded any specific finding on it, because of its conclusion that petitioner did not possess locus to approach the Court independent of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the matter. 4.With his assistance, we have looked into the relevant paragraphs. 5.Paragraph nos. 39 and 40 of the judgment delivered by this Court shows the reasons which weighed this Court. The arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel then appearing, are also mentioned by us in the said judgment. 6.The reasons for condonation of delay also do not inspire confidence. The same are not supported by proper affidavit. 7.In this situation, we find the effort of review itself erroneous. We are therefore, not inclined to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay. The same is rejected. Consequently, the Misc. Civil Application also stands rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd. Order CERTIFICATE I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order. Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploadedon: 19wp28.07.2016
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