Wp/2344/2006 Of Omprakash Abrol (Huf) v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-19, Mumbai And 2 Ors
High Court
12 Sep 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/2344/2006 Of Omprakash Abrol (Huf) v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-19, Mumbai And 2 Ors
Date of order
12 Sep 2006
Assessment year(s)
2002-2003
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Wp/2344/2006 Of Omprakash Abrol (Huf) v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-19, Mumbai And 2 Ors, the High Court (2006) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
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-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO.2344 OF 2006
Omprakash Abrol (HUF). .. .. Petitioner
v/s.
The Commissioner of Income Tax
& ors. .. .. .. Respondents
Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah for petitioner.
Mr.A.N.Kotangale for respondents.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 12th September 2006
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner had filed his return
earlier for the Assessment year 2002-2003. In a
revised return, he sought a benefit under Section
80IB of the Income Tax Act by seeking a
rectification. Simultaneously he filed a Revision
against the earlier decision. All that the
Commissioner of Income Tax has done by his order
dated 3rd March 2006 is to hold that when the
decision on rectification Application is pending,
the Revision will not be entertained.
3. The petitioner has subsequently received the order rejecting his rectification Application filed later. That order is dated 4th May 2006.
-2-
4. Mr.Shah seeks to withdraw this Petition
challenging the order dated 3rd March 2006 to
avail of an appropriate remedy against the order
dated 4th May 2006.
5. The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn
with liberty as prayed for. All contentions
raised in the present Petition will be available
to the petitioner.
6. We may add that the time spent in
prosecuting the present Petition will not be read
against the petitioner.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, 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.