M/S.star Lite, Mumbai 400 007 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
09 Mar 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S.star Lite, Mumbai 400 007 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
09 Mar 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In M/S.star Lite, Mumbai 400 007 v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Decision: We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 12.3.2004 impugned in the present Writ Petition and direct the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XVI, Mumbai to reconsider the Petitioner’s application seeking extension under Section 80HHC (2) (a) in accordance with law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2005
WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2005
WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2005
M/s.Star Lite, Mumbai 400 007. .. Petitioner
V/s
Commissioner of Income Tax
Mumbai XVI & Ors. .. Respondents
Ms.Vasanti Patel for the Petitioner.
Smt.A.J.Kaushik for the Respondents.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 09.03.2005.
DATE : 09.03.2005.
DATE : 09.03.2005.
P.C.:
P.C.:
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Returnable forthwith.
3. The Advocate on record for the revenue waives
service.
4. Rule is treated on board for final hearing at this
stage.
5. Having considered the available material and all the
aspects, we are of the view that the application made by
the Petitioner seeking extension under Section 80HHC (2)
(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for realisation of
outstanding export proceeds requires reconsideration by
the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XVI Mumbai.
It is so because it is apparent from the particulars
available on record that the payment has been received,
though belatedly, from the concerned parties. The
Petitioner in the application seeking extension under
section 80HHC (2) (a) for realisation of outstanding
export proceeds set out the ground that "the delay is
due to the financial difficulties of the foreign buyer
and that they they have promised to make the payment
shortly". The assessee’s ground set out above suggest
that it was beyond his control. We are of the view that
the matter requires reconsideration by the Commissioner.
6. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 12.3.2004
impugned in the present Writ Petition and direct the
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City XVI, Mumbai to
reconsider the Petitioner’s application seeking
extension under Section 80HHC (2) (a) in accordance with
law.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No
costs.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR,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.