PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1 vs RAJ ENTERPRISES AY 2016-17 ITA 3220/MUM/2022 — ITXA/213/2024

Case under Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

Next hearing 11-Jun-2026

CNR: HCBM020352362023

e-Filing Number

18-12-2023

Filing Number

ITXA/35223/2023

Filing Date

18-Dec-2023

Registration No

ITXA/213/2024

Registration Date

09-Feb-2024

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni , Hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni , Hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Original

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 1

    Adv. SHARMA AKHILESHWAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAJ ENTERPRISES AY 2016-17 ITA 3220/MUM/2022

Case History

  1. 11-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni,hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. SatheView PDF

    Case Summary - ITXA 213/2024 The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the ITAT's May 2023 order for AY 2016-17. The ITAT had remanded the matter to CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after finding the original CIT(A) order was ex parte. The court upheld the ITAT's remand, finding no substantial question of law warranting interference, and kept all merit contentions open for the de-novo proceedings before CIT(A). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Kulkarni , Hon'ble Ms Justice Aarti A. Sathe

  4. 18-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. ITXA/213/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - ITXA 213/2024 The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging the ITAT's May 2023 order for AY 2016-17. The ITAT had remanded the matter to CIT(A) for de-novo consideration after finding the original CIT(A) order was ex parte. The court upheld the ITAT's remand, finding no substantial question of law warranting interference, and kept all merit contentions open for the de-novo proceedings before CIT(A). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case