Shri Vijay Ravji Gajra v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax-28(3
High Court
18 Aug 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Shri Vijay Ravji Gajra v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax-28(3
Date of order
18 Aug 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Shri Vijay Ravji Gajra v. Dy.commissioner Of Income Tax-28(3, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 5.Accordingly petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
rrpillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPLICATION NO.2019 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2917 OF 2016
Shri Vijay Ravji Gajra
…Applicant…Respondent
vs.
Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-28(3)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2917 OF 2016
Shri Vijay Ravji Gajra
…Petitioner …Respondent
vs.
Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-28(3)
…..
Mr.V.R.Kasle i/b. Ms.Meena Sharma for the Applicant/Petitioner.Mr.N.C,Mohanty for the Respondent .
…..
CORAM : M.S.SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 18[th] AUGUST, 2016
P.C.:
1.The Civil Application has been taken out for recall of the order
dated 27[th] April, 2016 by which this petition was dismissed for non
prosecution. The learned Counsel for the respondent has noobjection in allowing the application.
rrpillai
2. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayerclause (a).
3. At this stage, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for finaldisposal at the request of the Counsel.
4.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructionstates that he seeks to withdraw this petition.
5.Accordingly petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order asto costs.
(A.K. MENON,J.)
(M. S. SANKLECHA,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