Case LawHigh Court › Wp/507/2005 Of R. D. Raut And Ors v. Inc...

Wp/507/2005 Of R. D. Raut And Ors v. Income Tax Officer And Ors

High Court 15 Mar 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/507/2005 Of R. D. Raut And Ors v. Income Tax Officer And Ors
Date of order
15 Mar 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp/507/2005 Of R. D. Raut And Ors v. Income Tax Officer And Ors, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.

Decision: The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the directions that the respondent No.2 namely the Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 27, Mumbai shall consider and decide the petitioners’ application dated 5/10/2001 (Exhibit -B) as early as possible and in no case later than six weeks from the date...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

-= : 1 : =- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.507 OF 2005 ORDINARY WRIT PETITON NO.507 OF 2005 R.D. Raut & Ors. ..Petitioners. V/s. Income Tax Officers and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Mahadeo A.Choudhari for petitioners. Mr.A.S.Rao for respondents. CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 15TH MARCH, 2005. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 15TH MARCH, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard counsel for both the sides. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent Rule is heard finally at this stage. 3. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Revenue in opposition to the petition. Mr.Rao learned counsel for revenue submits that the respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 27, Bombay who has jurisdiction in the matter shall consider the petitioners application dated 5/10/2001 as early as -= : 2 : =- possible and positively within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 4. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue, we are satisfied that it is not necessary for us to consider the controversy raised in the petition on merits and interest of justice shall be served if the respondent No.2 considers the petitioner’s application dated 5/10/2001 with regard to allowance of rebate under section 10(14) (ii) read with Rule 2BB. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the directions that the respondent No.2 namely the Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 27, Mumbai shall consider and decide the petitioners’ application dated 5/10/2001 (Exhibit -B) as early as possible and in no case later than six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, 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