The Commissioner Of Incometax, Pune v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkarmarathwada University,Aurangabad
High Court
23 Mar 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Incometax, Pune v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkarmarathwada University,Aurangabad
Date of order
23 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Incometax, Pune v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkarmarathwada University,Aurangabad, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.Considering the above, in order dated 23.2.2018, in Tax Appeal No.67/2008, in the title cause, Mr Alok Sharma Standing Counsel for the appellant be shown present and paragraph 1 of the said order be deleted.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4213 OF 2018IN
TAX APPEAL NO.67 OF 2008
The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Pune
..Applicant
Versus
Dr. Babasaheb AmbedkarMarathwada University,Aurangabad
..Respondent
Mr Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for applicant Mr P.S. Dighe, Advocate i/b Mr R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel for respondent
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. DHAVALE, JJ
PER COURT
DATE : 23rd March 2018
1.Motion is made on the ground that the Advocate for the appellant was present on 23.2.2018, but inadvertently, is marked absent.
2.The learned Counsel for the non-applicant/original respondent also accepts the said fact.
3.Considering the above, in order dated 23.2.2018, in Tax Appeal No.67/2008, in the title cause, Mr Alok Sharma Standing Counsel for the appellant be shown present and paragraph 1 of the said order be deleted.
4.Civil Application disposed of.
( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)
( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, 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