Case LawHigh Court › Wp/2344/2006 Of Omprakash Abrol (Huf) v....

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Decision: The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 The Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax 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