Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Cello Writing Instruments & Containers Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mumbai
Date of order
06 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
In Cello Writing Instruments & Containers Private Limited v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Admit on the following substantial question of law : a)Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that jurisdictional pre-condition necessary for assuming jurisdiction under section 154 of the Act had not been fulfilled in the present case and hence order passed by the Respondent No.1 on 22[nd ]July 20...
Decision: 3.The appeal is thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2021 OF 2009
Cello Writing Instruments & Containers Private LimitedVersusDy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mumbai
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the appellant.Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 6TH OCTOBER 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the revenue. Admit on the following substantial question of law :
a)Whether the Tribunal ought to have held that jurisdictional pre-condition necessary for assuming jurisdiction under section 154 of the Act had not been fulfilled in the present case and hence order passed by the Respondent No.1 on 22[nd ]July 2003 is illegal and bad in law ?
2.By consent taken up for hearing. Both parties agree that the above issue is squarely covered by the order of this Court in the case of assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal No.195 of 2009 decided on 31-3-2009. For the reasons recorded therein, the appeal is allowed. The question framed is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The copy of the order referred above is retained on file.
3.The appeal is thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.