Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Heard

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Heard

High Court 16 Nov 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Heard
Date of order
16 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Heard, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law, with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1040 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt.Vimla S.Jajoo ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.Madhur Agarwal with Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent. P.C. 1.Heard. Perused appeal. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 16[th] NOVEMBER, 2009 DATE : 2.The appeal is directed against the order dated 27th November, 2006 which is nothing but a corrigendum to the order dated 31st October, 2006. The opening part of the appeal also indicates that the appeal is against the order dated 27th November, 2006. 3.Mr.Vimal Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that the challenge to the order dated 27[th] November, 2006 is wrongly made. According to him, the challenge ought to have been made to the substantive order of the Tribunal dated 30[th ]October, 2006, as such he took us to the said order and made his submissions. 4.Having heard Mr.Gupta, assuming he is right, even then the appeal against the order dated 30[th] October, 2006 would be barred by limitation for want of challenge within time. No prayer for amendment much less for condonation of delay is to be found. Hence, the submission made is misplaced. 5.Be that as it may, having gone through the order dated 31[st] October, 2006, no case can be said to have been made out by the appellant to entertain this appeal against the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law, with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,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