Case LawHigh Court › Rahul Associates (Dissolved), Mumbai v....

Rahul Associates (Dissolved), Mumbai v. The Income-Tax Officer-17 (2)(1),Mumbai And Anr

High Court 16 Dec 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Rahul Associates (Dissolved), Mumbai v. The Income-Tax Officer-17 (2)(1),Mumbai And Anr
Date of order
16 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Rahul Associates (Dissolved), Mumbai v. The Income-Tax Officer-17 (2)(1),Mumbai And Anr, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.214 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13 OF 2008 WITHCHAMBER SUMMONS NO.213 OF 2017INWRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2008 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.212 OF 2017INWRIT PETITION NO.14 OF 2008 WITHCHAMBER SUMMONS NO.209 OF 2017IN WRIT PETITION NO.15 OF 2008 Rahul Narendrakumar Baldota and Shrenik Narendrakumar Baldota,Beneficiaries of the Rahul Associates(Dissolved), Mumbai ...Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Rahul Associates (Dissolved), Mumbai ...Petitioner vs. The Income-Tax Officer-17 (2)(1),Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Ms. Dinkle Hariya a/w. Ms. Namrata Kasale (New Advocates) for thePetitioner/ Applicant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani (Earlier Advocate) for the Petitioner/Applicant for the Petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w. Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for the Respondent-Revenue.----- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATE : 16 DECEMBER 2021. P. C. : Chamber Summons listed today have been taken out to bringApplicants on record as Petitioner in place of original Petitioner in thepetition. The original Petitioner was a private trust which came to bedissolved in terms of a Trust Deed by efflux of time on 31/3/2011.Applicants state that based on an arrangement between beneficiaries of theTrust, assets and liabilities of Petitioner are taken over by Applicants andDeclaration-cum-Indemnity was executed in that regard on 18/2/2013.Applicants state that they are therefore entitled to prosecute the originalpetitions in their capacity as beneficiaries of the original petitioner. 2.There is an affidavit of service dated 29/9/2017. No replyopposing the Chamber Summons is filed. Therefore, the ChamberSummons are allowed. Applicants are permitted to amend the writpetitions as per the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. Amendment be carried out within 4 weeks from today. 3.Petitions be listed for final hearing on 17/12/2021, thoughamendment would not have been carried out by then. 4.Chamber Summons disposed. (AMIT B. BORKAR, J) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
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