Case LawHigh Court › Versusincome Tax Officer Ward 3(2) And O...

Versusincome Tax Officer Ward 3(2) And Ors v. Since We Have Disposed This Petition Only On The Issue Of

High Court 03 Apr 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Versusincome Tax Officer Ward 3(2) And Ors v. Since We Have Disposed This Petition Only On The Issue Of
Date of order
03 Apr 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Versusincome Tax Officer Ward 3(2) And Ors v. Since We Have Disposed This Petition Only On The Issue Of, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

1/2 901-aswp-584-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.584 OF 2023 Shankar Govind Mhatre VersusIncome Tax Officer Ward 3(2) and Ors. …Petitioner …Respondents Mr. Dharan Gandhi for Petitioner.Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondents-Revenue. PC:- 1.Counsel for Petitioner states that the issue in this petition willbe covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Godrej IndustriesLtd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2),Mumbai and Ors.[1]Counsel for Respondents agrees. 2.Therefore, impugned orders passed under Section 148A(d) ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and the notices issued underSection 148 of the Act in the petition are hereby quashed and setaside. Consequential notices or orders, if any, also stand quashed andset aside. 3Petition disposed. 4Since we have disposed this petition only on the issue of limitation, petitioner may raise the other contentions raised in thispetition independently, if the need arise in other matters. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, 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