Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Rajasthan Textile Development Corporation, Pano Kibagichi, Amer Road, Jaipur
High Court
29 May 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Rajasthan Textile Development Corporation, Pano Kibagichi, Amer Road, Jaipur
Date of order
29 May 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. M/S Rajasthan Textile Development Corporation, Pano Kibagichi, Amer Road, Jaipur, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Decision: 5.The appeal stands disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 21 / 2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II, JAIPUR.
----Appellant
Versus
M/S RAJASTHAN TEXTILE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PANO KIBAGICHI, AMER ROAD, JAIPUR.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.D. Mathur & Mr. Prateek Kedawat on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak & Ms. Ishita Rawat
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHURJudgment
Per Hon’ble Jhaveri, J.29/05/2017
1.By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdisposed of the Misc. Application preferred by the assessee.
2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 18.01.2010 hasframed the following substantial question of law:
“Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the ITAT was justified in law inadmitting and deciding the Misc.application u/s 254(2) of the Act of theassessee in the name of mistake apparentfrom record despite the fact that itsoriginal order was passed after consideringall the facts on record?”
3.The appropriate remedy for the appellant is to file a writpetition against the said order.
4.In case appropriate writ petition is filed, the period spentduring the period from 2010 till date will be taken up for limitationpurposes by the Court while taking into consideration the writpetition.
5.The appeal stands disposed of.
(VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J.
(K.S. JHAVERI),J.
Asheesh Kr. Yadav/51
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.