Case LawHigh Court › M/S. Jupiter Windows v. The Commissioner...

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.)
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