Sutantra Madanlal Juneja v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(4
High Court
08 Mar 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Sutantra Madanlal Juneja v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(4
Date of order
08 Mar 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Sutantra Madanlal Juneja v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(4, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
C/SCA/19084/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19084 of 2018With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19084 of 2018
==========================================================
SUTANTRA MADANLAL JUNEJA
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(4)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
andHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 08/03/2021 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
Mr. Hardik V. Vora, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant states that he has instructions form his client not to press this writ application as his client has already applied under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.
In view of such statement being made, this writ application stands disposed of as not pressed without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. Civil Application also stands disposed of.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)
SUCHIT
(ILESH J. VORA,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.