Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ra...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ramkumar Jaljalan

High Court 31 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ramkumar Jaljalan
Date of order
31 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ramkumar Jaljalan, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The Court noted that till the date of this order no steps have been taken to get the said order set aside.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1950 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.22 of 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax....Appellant Vs. M/s.Ramkumar Jaljalan ....Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant,. Mrs. V.B. Patel for the Respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 31st March, 2009 CORAM: F.I. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 31st March, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: . By this Motion the Revenue Appellants seek condonation of delay in taking out the Motion and secondly they pray for recalling the order dated 20th March, 2007 and to restore the Income Tax Application to file. 2. This Court on 20th March, 2007 noted that the present matter and some other matters there was a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.Revenue for same years filed Income Tax Applications which were dismissed for want of removal of office objections as far back as on 2nd March, 2004. The Court noted that till the date of this order no steps have been taken to get the said order set aside. The Court then concluded that (-2-) revenue seems to have accepted the said order and in the light thereof dismissed the Applications. 3. When the matter was heard Revenue was represented by Counsel. The Motion filed is not an application for review. The Court had dismissed the application on the ground that the Revenue in respect of other assessment years has accepted the orders and as such could not pursue the matter in respect of the subsequent years in respect of very same issue. This would be an order on merits. In the light of that Motion is not maintainable nor there is any merit in the Motion. Consequently, Motion dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,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