Wp/490/2020 Of Arya Nivas Lodging And Boarding House v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 And 2 Ors
High Court
05 Jun 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/490/2020 Of Arya Nivas Lodging And Boarding House v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 And 2 Ors
Date of order
05 Jun 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/490/2020 Of Arya Nivas Lodging And Boarding House v. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 And 2 Ors, the High Court (2023) 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.
Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2023.06.0617:57:04+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONWRIT PETITION NO.490 OF 2020
Arya Nivas Lodging & Boarding House
….Petitioner
V/s.
The Principal Commissioner of IncomeTax-18 & Ors.
…Respondents
----
Mr. Jitendra Singh for Petitioner.Ms Sushma Nagaraj a/w Ms Kinjal Patel for RespondentsMr. Mayur Mehta, CA of Petitioner present.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & M.M. SATHAYE JJ DATED : 5[th] JUNE 2023
M.M. SATHAYE JJ
P.C. :
1After the petition was heard for sometime, Mr. Singh on instructionsfrom Mr. Mayur Mehta, Constituted Attorney of petitioner, sought leave ofthe court to withdraw the petition with liberty to respond to the email dated19[th] December 2019, printout whereof is annexed at Exhibit J to thepetition. Mr. Singh states that petitioner would meet the concerned officerand clarify the doubt regarding the mismatch / partial payment claimed /objections raised in paragraph 12 onwards to the affidavit in reply filed byone Swati N Pandit affirmed on 3[rd] September 2020. Ms Nagaraj states thatshe will provide the details of the office, to which this response has to befiled, to Mr. Singh within one week from today.
2Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
3All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. We also clarify
that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)
(K.R. SHRIRAM, 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.