Wp/173/2007 Of Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
29 Jan 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/173/2007 Of Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
29 Jan 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp/173/2007 Of Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2007) dismissed 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITON NO.173 OF 2007
WRIT PETITON NO.173 OF 2007
Shri Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati ..Petitioner.
V/s.
The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent.
Mr.Prabhat Gupta for petitioner.
Mr.A.N.Kotangale for respondent.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 29TH JANUARY, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the respondent. The VDIS declaration was filed on 30th
December, 1997 which was admittedly beyond the period
of limtation prescribed. The Appellate Tribunal in its
order has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court
in Hemalatha Gargya V/s. C.I.T. & Anr.
Hemalatha Gargya V/s. C.I.T. & Anr. reported in259 ITR 1 in which it is clearly held that such a delay
259 ITR 1
cannot be condoned. In view thereof, there is no
substance in the petition. Petition is dismissed.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.