https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309230 Allegations of inconsistent affidavit annexures suggesting possible document manipulation were not decided on the merits; the Bombay HC confined itself to procedural case management and directed the respondent-affiant to file a reply affidavit answering the petitioner's rejoinder. The court noted the competing descriptions of the annexed document but did not determine whether any manipulation had occurred. It also set a timetable for compliance, requiring the response to be filed and served by 12 noon on 26 April 2022, and listed the matter for further consideration on 27 April 2022. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Aug 2023 18:30:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309230 Allegations of inconsistent affidavit annexures suggesting possible document manipulation were not decided on the merits; the Bombay HC confined itself to procedural case management and directed the respondent-affiant to file a reply affidavit answering the petitioner's rejoinder. The court noted the competing descriptions of the annexed document but did not determine whether any manipulation had occurred. It also set a timetable for compliance, requiring the response to be filed and served by 12 noon on 26 April 2022, and listed the matter for further consideration on 27 April 2022. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309230