Case LawHigh Court › Wp/277/2005 Of M/S. Maruti Exports v. R....

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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