Case LawHigh Court › Futuristic Offshore Services & Chemicals...

Futuristic Offshore Services & Chemicals Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I & Ors

High Court 05 Oct 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Futuristic Offshore Services & Chemicals Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I & Ors
Date of order
05 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Futuristic Offshore Services & Chemicals Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I & Ors, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.697 of 2009 Futuristic Offshore Services & Chemicals Ltd. ...Petitioners Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I & Ors. ...Respondents Dr. P. Daniel with Mr. V.S. Hadade, for the PetitionersMr. Suresh Kumar & Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 5TH OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2.The petitioners had earlier preferred an Appeal with was dismissed for statistical purposes on 22[nd] November, 2005. 3.The petitioners thereafter preferred a Revision Application, which Revision Application came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had earlier preferred an Appeal which had been dismissed. 4.At the threshold it was the submission on behalf of the respondents that the petition was not maintainable. The impugned order was passed after hearing the parties. The objection now raised on behalf of the respondent was not brought to the attention of the C.I.T. (A). 5. At the hearing of this petition on behalf of the petitioner learned Counsel draws our attention to Circular No.367 dated 26[th] July, 1983 whereunder inspite of withdrawal of an Appeal a Revision is held to be maintainable. This aspect of the Circular, it appears, was not brought to the attention of the Revisional Authority and consequently the Revisional Authority could not consider the same. 6.Considering the above, in our opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to file of the Commissioner of Income Tax for deciding the objection as now raised and other contentions as has been raised on behalf of the petitioner herein. 7.Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan