Wp/277/2005 Of M/S. Maruti Exports v. R. K. Chopra Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xvi, Mumbai
High Court
14 Feb 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Wp/277/2005 Of M/S. Maruti Exports v. R. K. Chopra Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xvi, Mumbai
Date of order
14 Feb 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/277/2005 Of M/S. Maruti Exports v. R. K. Chopra Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xvi, 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.
-= : 1 : =-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.277 OF 2005
ORDINARY
WRIT PETITON NO.277 OF 2005
M/s.Maruti Exports ..Petitioner.
V/s.
P.K.Chopra, Commissioner of Income-tax ..Respondent.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for petitioner.
Mr.R.V.Desai, senior counsel with A.S.Rao for respondent.
CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
CORAM : S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2005.
DATED : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2005.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Rule, returnable forthwith.
2. The advocate on record for the revenue waives
service.
3. By consent, rule is taken on board for hearing.
4. Having considered the impugned order dated 12th
march, 2004, 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
-= : 2 : =-
from some parties after some time over which the
petitioner had no control. By overlooking this vital
aspect the impugned order is vitiated.
5. 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 provision of Section
80HHC (2)(a) after giving an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner.
6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.