Wp/1256/2005 Of Messers N. Kirtikumar And Company v. P.k. Sharma Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai
High Court
04 May 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/1256/2005 Of Messers N. Kirtikumar And Company v. P.k. Sharma Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai
Date of order
04 May 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp/1256/2005 Of Messers N. Kirtikumar And Company v. P.k. Sharma Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Decision: Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1256 OF 2005
M/s.N. Kirtikumar & Company .. Petitioner.
V/s.
P.K. Chopra, Commissioner of
Income-tax, Mumbai-XVI,
Mumbai & Others .. Respondents.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the petitioner.
Mr.A.S. Rao for the respondents.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 4TH MAY, 2005.
DATED : 4TH MAY, 2005.
P.C. :
1. The advocate on record for the revenue
waives service. Perused record.
2. By consent, rule is taken on board for
hearing.
3. Having considered the impugned order dated
31st March, 2005, we find that the Commissioner of
Income Tax, Mumbai-XVI failed to take into
consideration the relevant aspect that the petitioner
did receive the sale proceeds from some parties after
some time over which the petitioner had no control.
By overlooking this vital aspect the impugned order
2
is vitiated.
4. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the
order dated 15th March, 2004 passed by the
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai XVI and direct him
to pass appropriate order afresh in consonance with
the provisions of section 30HHC(2) (a) after giving
an opportu ity of being heard to the petitioner.
5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
(V.C. DAGA, 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