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.)
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.