In Seth Arvind N. Mafatlal (Huf v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2005) 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 JURISDICGTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 96 of 1990
Seth Arvind N. Mafatlal (HUF) .... Applicant.
vs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..... Respondent
None for applicant.
Mr. Ashok Kotangale, Sr. Counsel for Respondent
CORAM: V. C. DAGA
AND
A. S. AGUIAR JJ.
Date: 26[th] July, 2005.
P. C.:
1. No one has been appearing in the matter for the last few dates.Even today inspite of repeated calls, nobody is appearing for theapplicant. Hence question returned unanswered. Reference standsdisposed of with no order as to costs. Even today inspite of repeated calls, nobody is appearing for theapplicant. Hence question returned unanswered. Reference standsdisposed of with no order as to costs.
(V. C. DAGA J. )
(A. S. AGUIAR J.)
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