PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 MUMBAI vs L AND T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (AY 2016 17 ITA 3566 MUM — HCBM20115942025

Case under Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Next hearing 15-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM020115942025

e-Filing Number

10-04-2025

Filing Number

ITXA/11594/2025

Filing Date

15-Apr-2025

Judge

Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

Coram

Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

Bench Type

Division

Category

DIRECT TAXES ( 10 )

Sub-Category

PENALTIES/PROSECUTION/SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ( 12 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 MUMBAI

    Adv. Akhileshwar Sharma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.L AND T INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (AY 2016 17 ITA 3566 MUM

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)View PDF

    This order does not pertain to the case described in your introduction (PR Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai v. L and T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, AY 2016-17). The document is a procedural order from the Bombay High Court dated June 15, 2026, regarding multiple income tax appeals (ITXAL matters). The court directed appellants to remove office objections and file compliance within two weeks, failing which the appeals would stand rejected under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    For Rejection Under Rule 986

    Shri. A. H. Laddhad(Prothonotary Senior Master)

  4. 15-Apr-2025

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

This order does not pertain to the case described in your introduction (PR Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai v. L and T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, AY 2016-17). The document is a procedural order from the Bombay High Court dated June 15, 2026, regarding multiple income tax appeals (ITXAL matters). The court directed appellants to remove office objections and file compliance within two weeks, failing which the appeals would stand rejected under O.S. Rule 986 for non-compliance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case