Case Law › High Court › Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 v. Mah...

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 v. Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd

High Court 31 Oct 2017 In favour of: Unclear

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

31 Oct 2017

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 v. Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.

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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1368 OF 2017 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO. 725 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2 … Applicant vs. Mahindra Navistar Automotives Ltd. … Respondent …....... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Applicant. Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the Respondent. …....... P. C. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ.DATE : 31[st] OCTOBER, 2017 1.Heard learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learnedCounsel appearing for the respondent. Sufficient cause is made out in view ofthe averment made in the affidavit in support of the Motion. 2.Accordingly, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms ofprayer clause (a). (A.K. MENON, J.) (A.S. OKA, 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.