Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd.]… v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,]Circle-5, Pune & Ors.] …
High Court
01 Dec 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd.]… v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,]Circle-5, Pune & Ors.] …
Date of order
01 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd.]… v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,]Circle-5, Pune & Ors.] …, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 903-WP 8233-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8233 OF 2021
Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd.]… Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,]Circle-5, Pune & Ors.] … Respondents
Ms. Aarti Saathe a/w Mr. Subhash Jadhav, Ms. Raksha Thakkar & Ms.Sailee Dhayalkar i/b Parinam Law Associates for Petitioner.Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w Mr. Pritesh Chatterjee for Respondents.
CORAM:- K. R. SHRIRAM &AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.DATE :- 01DECEMBER, 2021
P. C. :-
1.After the Petition was heard for some time, learned Counselfor Petitioner stated that the jurisdictional CIT before whom a RevisionApplication against the order dated 29/10/2021 has been filed may bedirected to dispose of the Revision Application after considering thedocuments to be submitted by Petitioner and after giving a personalhearing to Petitioner.
2.Mr. Walve leaves it to the wisdom of the Court.
URS 1 of 2
2 903-WP 8233-21.odt
3.The jurisdictional Commissioner before whom the RevisionApplication is filed may dispose the Revision Application in accordancewith law, but before disposing, shall consider the documents to be filed byPetitioner which Ms. Saathe states will be filed within one week and aftergiving them a personal hearing within a week thereafter.
4.Until this Revision Application is disposed which we expect tobe disposed within 2 weeks, no coercive steps to be taken.
5.Petition disposed.
6.We clarify that we have not made any observation on meritsof the case and the authority may pass such order which he deems fit inaccordance with law.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
URS 2 of 2
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.