D.b. Civil Review v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
High Court
11 Oct 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
D.b. Civil Review v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
Date of order
11 Oct 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In D.b. Civil Review v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The review petition is accordingly allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR
D.B. Civil Review No. 142 / 2017
M/s Jalan Hard Coke Pvt. Ltd., A Company Duly Incorporated Under Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and Having Its Registered Office At 4/3, Kala Kuan, Housing Board, Alwar (rajasthan) Acting Through Its Duly Authorized Director, Shri B.N. Jalan, Aged 72 Years, Resident of 4/3, Kala Kuan, Housing Board, Alwar (rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Aayakar Bhawan, Moti Doongri Road, Alwar (rajasthan)
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain with Ms. Shiva Goyal
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
11/10/2017
Delay in filing the review petition is condoned. Applicationu/s 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.
In view of the submission made, we clarify that in view ofthe decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT Ahmadabad vs.Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), theorder of the Tribunal as well as CIT(A) both are required to bequashed and set aside. The order of the Division Bench dated 1[st]August, 2017 is accordingly modified.
The review petition is accordingly allowed.
(INDERJEET SINGH)J.
(K.S.JHAVERI)J.
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.
EaseValue