Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Mumbai v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'K' Bench & Anr
High Court
28 Feb 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Mumbai v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'K' Bench & Anr
Date of order
28 Feb 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Mumbai v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'K' Bench & Anr, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: 2 4.In view of above, this writ petition has becomeinfructuous and is accordingly disposed of. [ MILIND N.
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 BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO. 504 OF 2020
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Mumbai..Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'K' Bench & Anr.
..Respondents
...................
Mr. N.C. Mohanty for the Petitioner Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Mr. Ajinkya Jaibhave for the Respondents...................
CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 28, 2020.
P.C.:
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.Petitioner i.e Principal Commissioner of Income Tax hasassailed order dated 22.7.2016 passed by respondent No. 1
i.e Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'K' Bench, Mumbai in S.A.No. 242/Mum/16 filed by respondent No. 2 on the groundthat the stay was granted beyond 365 days.
3.Today, when the matter is called upon, Mr. Mohanty,learned standing counsel, revenue for the petitioner fairly
submits that the related appeal filed by respondent No. 2 i.eassessee being ITA 1484/M/2014 for the assessment year2009-10 was finally disposed of by respondent No. 1 on3.5.2017 by allowing the appeal of respondent No. 2
4.In view of above, this writ petition has becomeinfructuous and is accordingly disposed of.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ]
Digitallysigned byRavindraRavindra M.AmberkarM.AmberkarDate:2020.03.0215:31:06+0530
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.
EaseValue