Case LawHigh Court › Shri Uday C.nanavati & Ors v. Chief Comm...

Shri Uday C.nanavati & Ors v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors

High Court 28 Apr 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Shri Uday C.nanavati & Ors v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors
Date of order
28 Apr 2010
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Shri Uday C.nanavati & Ors v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.550 OF 2010 Shri Uday C.Nanavati & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors....Respondents. .... Mr.Percy J.Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Vasanti B.Patel for the Petitioners. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent.Mr.Sunil Kumar, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax present. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. April 28, 2010. P.C. : The challenge is to an order passed on 29 January 2009 by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, rejecting an application filed by the Petitioners, seeking approval under Section 10(23C)(vi)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the period commencing from Assessment Year 2008-09. The impugned order notes that though the Petitioners were asked to furnish certain information that would have a bearing on their application for approval, such information was not supplied. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that without prejudice to the contention that the relevant information was supplied, the Petitioners are ready and willing to supply all the information that was sought by the Respondents to the extent to which it is available with the Petitioners. This will facilitate a fresh consideration of the application for approval under Section 10(23C)(vi)(a). Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue states on instructions of Shri Sunil Kumar, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax that a fresh order would be passed upon the Petitioners supplying the necessary information. In the circumstances, in order to facilitate the passing of a fresh order on the application for approval, the impugned order dated 29 January 2009 is, by consent, set aside. A decision on the application filed by the Petitioners on 30 January 2008, seeking approval under Section 10(23C)(vi)(a) shall be taken afresh, after furnishing to the Petitioners, an opportunity of being heard. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, 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.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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