The Principal Commissioner Of Incometax - 4, Pune And Ors v. Amit B. Borkar, Jj
High Court
08 Dec 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Incometax - 4, Pune And Ors v. Amit B. Borkar, Jj
Date of order
08 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
2017-18
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Principal Commissioner Of Incometax - 4, Pune And Ors v. Amit B. Borkar, Jj, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Digitallysigned byPURTIPURTIPRASADPRASADPARABPARABDate:2021.12.1015:02:13+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2122 OF 2021
Rakesh Raghunath Bidkar
V/s.
The Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax - 4, Pune and Ors.
….Petitioner
…Respondents
----
Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b Farzeen Khambatta for Petitioner.Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 8[th] DECEMBER 2021
P.C. :1.We have heard Mr. Bhave and Mr. Walve and considered thepetition, reply and rejoinder etc.
2.The judgment of this court in Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax And Others1relied upon by Mr.Bhave
comes to the aid of petitioner. The facts in Stride Multitrade Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and the facts in the case at hand are almost identical. In StrideMultitrade Pvt. Ltd., the appeal with condonation of delay application had
been filed on 6[th] February, 2020 where as in the case at hand has filed on26[th] February, 2020. Since, the application for condonation of delay is filedbefore the date of circular dated 4[th] December, 2020 referred to in the Stride
Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this petition also has to be allowed.
1 [2021] 439 ITR 141 (Bom)
2.Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as
under :
(b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature ofMandamus, or any order writ, order or direction under Articles 226and 227 of the Constitution of India, directing Respondent No.1 toverify the Petitioner’s Declaration under the VSV Act for AY 2017-18 (Exhibit G), and to accept the same and issue the consequentForm 3 under the VSV Rules determining the amount payable byPetitioner in terms of Section 3 of the VSV Act, and further, directthe Respondents to exclude the time from the Impugned Order tillthe issue of Form 3 for the purpose of determining the cut-off datesfor making payment/s in terms of the VSV Act and the VSV Rules.
3.Petition disposed.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, 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.