M/S. Jupiter Windows v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
21 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S. Jupiter Windows v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
21 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S. Jupiter Windows v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
((-1-))
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 81 OF 2008
M/s. Jupiter Windows ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax
& Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.Arun Sathe, Sr. Counsel with Mr. S.S. Phadkar,
Mr.Mandar Vaidya and Mr. Panjabrao Naik for
Petitioner.
Mr. R. Ashokan with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for
Respondents.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: JANUARY 21, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 21, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. Rule. Heard forthwith.
. The Petitioners have approached this court
against the order dated.9.2007 passed in M.A.
No.150 and 151/MEM/2007 arising out of I.T.A. Nos.
3117 and 3118/MEM/2002. Ordinarily we would have
directed the Petitioners to file independent
petition as by one petition both the orders could
not have been challenged.
. However, considering that the question of law
would be similar, we are entertaining one Petition.
. The major contention as advanced by the
Petitioners herein is as can be seen from Ground No.
(3) of Para 3 in M.A. No. 150/07 and Paras Nos. 2
((-2-))
and 3 of M.A. No. 151/2007. The contention is
that the issue on merits was not heard as the
tribunal had only heard them on the preliminary
point of validity of notice.
. The Tribunal in its impugned order has not dealt
with the said issue. The settled position of law
now is that the court would go by the record of the
tribunal when it hears the appeal arising from its
original order.
. Considering the above, in our opinion, this will
be a fit case to set aside the impugned order and
remand the matter back to the tribunal for dealing
with the contentions as raised by the Petitioners
herein and thereafter to pass afresh order according
to law.
. In the light of the above,the impugned order
dated 14.9.2007 is quashed and set aside.The matter
is remanded back to the tribunal for disposing of
the Misc. Applications according to law. The
tribunal to dispose of the matter at any rate not
latter than 4 months from the copy of this order
being produced before the tribunal. Petitioners to
produce the copy of this order before the tribunal.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
((-3-))
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, 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.