Wp/214/2012 Of Ankit Gupta v. Assistant Commissionr Of Income Tax Circle16(1) And 3 Ors
High Court
03 Apr 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/214/2012 Of Ankit Gupta v. Assistant Commissionr Of Income Tax Circle16(1) And 3 Ors
Date of order
03 Apr 2012
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/214/2012 Of Ankit Gupta v. Assistant Commissionr Of Income Tax Circle16(1) And 3 Ors, the High Court (2012) 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
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.89 OF 2012
Smt. Manju Gupta
..Petitioner.
V/s.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Mumbai & Ors.
..Respondent.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.214 OF 2012
Shri Ankit Gupta
..Petitioner.
V/s.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Mumbai & Ors.
..Respondent.
Mr. Jitendra Jain with Deepak Rai i/b. Negandhi, Shah & Himayatullah for the petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondents.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 3RD APRIL, 2012
P.C. :-
Counsel for the parties state that a similar Writ Petition filed by one of the assessee for the assessment year AY 2005-06 being
Writ Petition No.212 of 2012 has been disposed off by us today i.e. 3[rd ]April, 2012. For the reasons stated therein, the above Writ Petitions are disposed by setting aside the order rejecting the objections and directing the assessing officer to pass fresh order on merits dealing with the objections raised by the assessee. No order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA I, 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.