Case Law › High Court › Shri Alphale Mukund Ganesh v. The Commis...

Shri Alphale Mukund Ganesh v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune

High Court 02 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newas

Parties

Date of order

02 Aug 2011

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Shri Alphale Mukund Ganesh v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune, the High Court (2011) 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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO. 5400 OF 2011 Shri Alphale Mukund Ganesh ..Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5411 OF 2011 Shri Joshi Shridhar Balkrishna..Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune...Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5414 OF 2011 Shri Suryawanshi Ramchandra J ..Petitioner Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5416 OF 2011 Shri Vasant Vishnu Joshi Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III ..Petitioner ..Respondent Mr. Chetan S. Damre i/by Sagar Kasar for the Appellant. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2011. P.C. 1.Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the petitions with liberty to file fresh petitions. All these petitions are allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petitions. ( A.A. SAYED, 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.

✅ 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.