Renuka Ann Braganza (Pan AMZPB2962K) v. Additional / Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bombay HC17 Mar 2026IA/1211/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of direct-tax writ petition dismissed under Rule 986 Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980 for non-removal of office objections; IA No. 1211 of 2026 in WP(L) No. 34156 of 2022; Renuka Ann Braganza v Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.; Bombay HC OOCJ, Colabawalla & Pooniwalla JJ., 17-03-2026; conditional revival with 2-week objection-removal deadline; no further restoration applications to be entertained; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition (L) No. 34156 of 2022 restored to the file of the Court, conditional on removal of all office objections within two weeks (with automatic dismissal and a bar on further restoration applications if not complied with); no order as to costs. ¶¶19

Renuka Ann Braganza (Pan AMZPB2962K) vs Additional / Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether Writ Petition (L) No. 34156 of 2022, dismissed pursuant to the administrative Notice dated 2 June 2023 requiring removal of office objections within 8 weeks (failing rejection under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980), should be restored to the file of the Court.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Revenue, and for the reasons stated in the Interim Application, the Court directed that Writ Petition (L) No. 34156 of 2022 be restored back to its file.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Restoration was made conditional upon the Advocates for the Applicant/Petitioner removing all office objections within a period of 2 weeks, failing which the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

If office objections are not removed within the stipulated time, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed and no further Application for restoration shall be entertained.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Division Bench of B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., Order dated 17 March 2026: Interim Application No. 1211 of 2026 in Writ Petition (L) No. 34156 of 2022, filed by Renuka Ann Braganza seeking restoration of the writ petition dismissed pursuant to administrative Notices requiring removal of all office objections in writ petitions filed under direct tax laws within 8 weeks (Notice dated 2 June 2023, extended by Notices of 28 July 2023, 20 October 2023 and 15 January 2024) failing rejection under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, was disposed of with the writ petition ordered to be restored to file. Restoration was conditioned on removal of all office objections within 2 weeks, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court and no further application for restoration shall be entertained. No order as to costs.

¶1

3 ia1211-26.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2026.03.17 17:14:14 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1211 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO.34156 OF 2022

¶5

Renuka Ann Braganza .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Ms.Madhura Mulay h/f Mr.Sandeep Mishra, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: MARCH 17, 2026

¶11

P. C.

¶12

The above Interim Application is filed seeking to restore to the file of this Court the above Writ Petition, which was dismissed pursuant to the Notice dated 2^nd June 2023. This Notice inter alia directed that all office objections in all Writ Petitions filed under direct tax laws were to be removed within a period of 8 weeks, failing which the same would stand rejected under Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. This period for removing office objections was thereafter further extended by Notices

¶13

dated 28^th July 2023, 20^th October 2023 and 15^th January 2024.

¶14

Page 1 of 2 MARCH 17, 2026

¶15

Mohite

¶16

3 ia1211-26.doc

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant as well as Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, and for the reasons stated in the above Interim Application, we direct that the above Writ Petition be restored back to the file of this Court.

¶18

Now that the Writ Petition is restored to file, the Advocates for the Applicant/Petitioner shall remove all office objections within a period of 2 weeks from today, failing which the above Writ Petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court and no further Application for restoration shall be entertained.

¶19

The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶21

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶22

Page 2 of 2 MARCH 17, 2026

¶23

Mohite

Renuka Ann Braganza (Pan AMZPB2962K) v. Additional / Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Ann Braganza (Pan AMZPB2962K) v. Additional / Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ecgc Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

Teksons Private Limited vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai 4

Piramal Finance Limited 2020 21 vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

Teksons Private Limited vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai 4

Thyssenkrupp Uhde India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income tax Circle 15(3)(1), And Ors.

Nippon Life India Asset Management Limited (Ay 2017 2018) vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(4) Mumbai