CHHOTALAL S. AJMERA (HUF) . vs C.I.T. MUMBAI CITY . — C.A. No. 2251/2001

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010142782000

Filing Date

25-Aug-2000

Registration No

C.A. No. 2251/2001

Diary Number

14278/2000

Order Date

11-Jul-2006

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHHOTALAL S. AJMERA (HUF) .

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.C.I.T. MUMBAI CITY .

    Adv. SUSHMA SURI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 20-Apr-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 03-Apr-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 23-Mar-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 19-Mar-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 25-Aug-2000

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2251/2001

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 002251/2001 - Chhotalal S. Ajmera (HUF) v. C.I.T. Mumbai City Outcome: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment dated 28 July 2000 and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh decision. The Court noted the High Court failed to consider the Commissioner's second report (20 October 1997) estimating undisclosed income at Rs. 42.5 crores, which approximated the Settlement Commission's final determination of Rs. 21.17 crores. Key Facts: Following searches in 1992, provisional assessment estimated undisclosed income at Rs. 200.60 crores. The assessee filed a settlement application disclosing Rs. 1.94 crores, later revised to Rs. 11.41 crores, and further increased to Rs. 21.17 crores. The Settlement Commission admitted the application and passed a final order on 29 January 1999, but the revenue challenged it through 21 writ petitions, which the High Court allowed. Next Steps: The case was remitted to the High Court to decide all contentions afresh, including whether it should have entertained the revenue's writ petitions and whether the settlement application was maintainable. The Chief Justice was requested to expedite disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case