The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18,Mumbai v. M/S. Jewel Of India, Mumbai
High Court
16 Dec 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18,Mumbai v. M/S. Jewel Of India, Mumbai
Date of order
16 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18,Mumbai v. M/S. Jewel Of India, Mumbai, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid, is the question raised in this Appeal.
Decision: In this view of the matter, the Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.494 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-18,Mumbai.
..Appellant.
Vs.
M/s. Jewel of India, Mumbai.
..Respondent.
....
Mr. D.K. Kamwal, for the Appellant.
Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w. Atul K. Jasani, for the Respondent.....
P.C.
CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16th DECEMBER, 2011.
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid, is the question raised in this Appeal.
2.Admittedly, the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was upheld by the ITAT and on a further appeal filed by the assessee being Income Tax Appeal No.194 of 2003, this Court by order dated 15.6.2009/8.7.2009 quashed the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act. Once the order of CIT passed
under Section 263 of the Act is quashed, the question of sustaining the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act would not arise. In this view of the matter, the Appeal is dismissed.
(A. R. JOSHI, 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