Anant Yashwantrao Chavan v. Income Tax Officer,Ward 1(4), Nasik
High Court
06 Jul 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Anant Yashwantrao Chavan v. Income Tax Officer,Ward 1(4), Nasik
Date of order
06 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Anant Yashwantrao Chavan v. Income Tax Officer,Ward 1(4), Nasik, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Decision: 1478 of PN /05 relating to the assessment year 2003-04 is set aside with a direction to the I.T.A.T.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
Dmt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3484 OF 2010
Anant Yashwantrao Chavan...Appellant.
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,Ward 1(4), Nasik.
..Respondent.
Mr. K. Gopal with Mr. Satendra Pande for the Appellant.Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 6TH JULY, 2011.
P.C.
In view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT
vs. Brahma Associates (Bom) reported in (2011) 51 DTR Judgments
299 Counsel for the parties state that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 06.08.2009 be quashed and set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance
with law. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal dated 06-08-2009 in
I.T. Appeal No. 1478 of PN /05 relating to the assessment year
2003-04 is set aside with a direction to the I.T.A.T. To decide the
question afresh and in accordance with law.
2.Appeal disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
( A.A. SAYED, 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