Case LawHigh Court › Wp/8264/2006 Of Kantilal Manakchand Lalw...

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) 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