The Principal Commissioner } Of Income Tax – Iii, Pune } v. Loknete Balasaheb Desai } Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana } Ltd. }
High Court
19 Oct 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Principal Commissioner } Of Income Tax – Iii, Pune } v. Loknete Balasaheb Desai } Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana } Ltd. }
Date of order
19 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Principal Commissioner } Of Income Tax – Iii, Pune } v. Loknete Balasaheb Desai } Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana } Ltd. }, the High Court (2016) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1602 OF 2015INREVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 23 OF 2015ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2013
WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1603 OF 2015INREVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 20 OF 2015ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1608 OF 2012
WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1604 OF 2015INREVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 24 OF 2015ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2013
WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1605 OF 2015INREVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 19 OF 2015ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1536 OF 2012
WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1606 OF 2015INREVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 17 OF 2015ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1537 OF 2012
WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1607 OF 2015INREVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 18 OF 2015ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1651 OF 2012
WITHNOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1608 OF 2015INREVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 21 OF 2015ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1650 OF 2012
The Principal Commissioner}of Income Tax – III, Pune}ApplicantversusLoknete Balasaheb Desai}Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana}Ltd.}Respondent
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the applicant.
Mr. Rohan Deshpande i/b. Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent.
CORAM :-S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &A. A. SAYED, JJ.DATED :-OCTOBER 19, 2016
P.C. :- (In Chamber)
1.We have heard Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing in support of these notices of motion for condonation of delay and Mr.Deshpande appearing for the respondent.
2.For the reasons set out in the affidavits in support and which constitute sufficient cause, we condone the delay in filing each of these review petitions. The Notices of motion are accordingly disposed of.
(A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, 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