M/S.kwality Laminators v. The Income Tax Appellate
High Court
13 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.kwality Laminators v. The Income Tax Appellate
Date of order
13 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S.kwality Laminators v. The Income Tax Appellate, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Decision: With these observations, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON
WRIT PETITION NO.1641 OF 2007
M/s.Kwality Laminators .. Petitioner.
Versus
The Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents.
Mr.Paras Savla with Mr.R.K. Hasani for the
petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 13TH AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Against the order passed in appeal, the
petitioner preferred a miscellaneous application.
The main contention urged was that the counsel who
had argued the appeal had not placed the point which
he ought to have argued. In our opinion,
considering the language used in Section 254 of the
Income Tax Act, such a contention would not fall
within its ambit and the petition on that point
would not be maintainable.
2. It would, however, be open to the petitioner
to raise the contentions in any other appropriate
remedy that may be available against the order in
original.
2
3. With these observations, the petition stands
disposed of with no order as to costs.
(F.I. REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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