Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Mumba...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Mumbai v. Ms Malvika Arun Somaiya )(Alias Priya Mohan Gurnant

High Court 09 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Mumbai v. Ms Malvika Arun Somaiya )(Alias Priya Mohan Gurnant
Date of order
09 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Mumbai v. Ms Malvika Arun Somaiya )(Alias Priya Mohan Gurnant, the High Court (2008) dismissed 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.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 994 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai).. Appellant Versus Ms Malvika Arun Somaiya )(alias Priya Mohan Gurnant)).. Respondent Mr Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr R Murlidhar with Mr Dhavik Manek i/b Wadia Gandhy & Co.for the Respondent. CORAM:SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J.DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER 2008. P.C. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2.While challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 27[th]September 2007, it is contended that the Assessee having not filed anyfresh returns in response to the notice under Section 148 of the IncomeTax Act, the Tribunal erred in holding that notice under Section 143(3)(2) ought to have been served upon the Assessee before taking anyfurther proceedings and on this basis question of law raised is that theTribunal has erred in interpreting Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Actand has incorrectly come to the conclusion that the order of assessment was in violation of the statutory provisions. 3.In our view, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not callfor any interference in face of the judgment of this Court in the case ofThe Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs HUF of H H Late Shri J M Scindia,Wealth Tax Appeal No.1001 of 2007 decided on 5[th] February 2008 andthe judgment of the Rajasthan Court in the case of Tiwari Kanhaiya Lalvs Commissioner of Income Tax, 1985 Vol. ITR 154 (Raj.). No questionof law much less substantial question of law arises for determination.Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A. P. DESHPANDE, 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan