The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers
High Court
01 Dec 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers
Date of order
01 Dec 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS 1792 OF 2009
ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1541 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.R.K.Choudhari for appellant.
Mr.S.C.Tiwari a/w. Mr.R.Asokan for respondent.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 1ST DECEMBER,2009
DATE :
P.C.
1.Heard rival parties.
Perused Chamber Summons
2.Mr.Asokan has vehemently argued that a mistake committed in transcribing the name of the respondent should not be allowed to be corrected. He took us through Verification clause in support of his submission.
3.Having appreciated the submissions made, there cannot be a second opinion that the mistake committed is a typographical mistake while transcribing the name of the parties. There are number of documents on record to suggest that the appeal was filed against M/s.Pransukhlal & Sons Jewellers. Even the Court Fees has also been paid in the said name.
4.In the above circumstances, we permit the appellant to amend the cause title and consequently name of the respondent. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of this order 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.