Wp/8264/2006 Of Kantilal Manakchand Lalwani v. Income Tax Officer And Ors
High Court
29 Jan 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/8264/2006 Of Kantilal Manakchand Lalwani v. Income Tax Officer And Ors
Date of order
29 Jan 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/8264/2006 Of Kantilal Manakchand Lalwani v. Income Tax Officer And Ors, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Decision: Under these circumstances, we quash and set aside the aforesaid three impugned orders and remit the matter back to the Tax Recovery Officer for a fresh consideration.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITON NO.8264 OF 2006
WRIT PETITON NO.8264 OF 2006
Kantilal Manakchand Lalwani ..Petitioner.
V/s.
Income Tax Officer & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr.N.R.Bubna for petitioner.
Mr.A.N.Kotangale for respondents.
CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 29TH JANUARY, 2007.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the respondents.. Rule, returnable forthwith. By
consent of the parties petition is taken up for final
hearing.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is
challenging three orders for the assessment years
1999-00, 2002-01 and 2001-02 and all the aforesaid
three orders were passed on 6th November, 2006.
3. These orders have been passed under section
147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The
petitioner has received certain interest amount
pursuant to Court orders. According to the petitioner,
- = : 2 : = -
the said interest is not taxable. The petitioner’s
objection with regard to reopening of the assessments
for the aforesaid periods were rejected. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice
Commissioner of Income TaxV/s. Abdul Manan Shah Mohammed 248 (2001) I.T.R. 614.
the Judgment our Court in Commissioner of Income Tax
V/s. Abdul Manan Shah Mohammed 248 (2001) I.T.R. 614.
The said Judgment has not been considered by the Tax
Recovery Officer. The Tax Recovery Officer has to
consider the amendment brought into section 45 (5)(c)
which was introduced from 1st April, 2004.
4. Under these circumstances, we quash and set
aside the aforesaid three impugned orders and remit the
matter back to the Tax Recovery Officer for a fresh
consideration.
5. The Tax Recovery Officer shall dispose of
the same within a period 4 weeks from the receipt of
order of this Court. In the event the order were to be
adverse to the petitioner, the order shall not be given
effect to for a period of 4 weeks thereafter, from the
date of service of the order on the petitioner.
6. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no
order as to costs.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
- = : 3 : = -
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.