M/S. Herbicides India Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jaipur
High Court
24 Oct 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
M/S. Herbicides India Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jaipur
Date of order
24 Oct 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S. Herbicides India Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jaipur, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Hence, the review petition is not entertained, the same stands dismissed.
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. Civil Review No. 44 / 2017
M/s. Herbicides India Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 12, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur Through Its Authorized Signatory- Mr. Ashok Kumar Dugar
----Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jaipur
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal with Ms. Charu PareekFor Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Aditya Vijay
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASOrder
24/10/2017
Defects are cured during the course of the day.
By way of this review petition, the petitioner has sought forreview of the order which has been passed by us on 26.4.2017.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that merely because thepaper book was not supplied, the review petition was dismissed,therefore, the appeal is required to be heard on merits.
In our considered opinion, both the appeals being identical
and once the judgment of the tribunal in one appeal (817/2008)stands confirmed between the same parties even if it is ontechnical ground, therefore, the same is required to be followed inthe next assessment year also.
In that view of the matter, the contention raised by
petitioner is required to be rejected.
Hence, the review petition is not entertained, the same
stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J.
Anil Sharma43.
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.