Case Law › High Court › Sharadchandra D.abhyankar v. Ito,Ward

Sharadchandra D.abhyankar v. Ito,Ward

High Court 24 Jan 2011 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

24 Jan 2011

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Sharadchandra D.abhyankar v. Ito,Ward, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The petition is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 148 case law →

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION (l)NO.54/2011 Sharadchandra D.Abhyankar VS. ITO,Ward No.11(3)(3) & Ors. PETITIONER RESPONDENT Mr.Sunip Sen ,Mr.Anil Wani,Ms.Supriya Devergudii/b Mr.Mehul J.Shah for the petitionersMr.Vimal Gupta for respondent CORAM- J.P.DEVADHAR ,AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.DATE - 24[th] JANUARY,2011. P.C. .The petitioners have challenged the notice dated 5/2/2010 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also reassessment order has been passed on 29/12/2010. Once the reassessment order is passed pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the proper course is to file an appeal against the reassessment order, wherein it would be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions that are raised in the petition. Hence we see no reasons to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) 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.