In Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax5(2), Mumabi v. Jindal Iron And Steel Company Ltd.(Jisco) Mumbai, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3736 OF 2004INAPPEAL LODGING NO. 824 OF 2004INCOMPANY APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2004INCOMPANY APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2004CONNECTED WITH THECOMPANY APPLICATION NO. 562 OF 2003
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax5(2), Mumabi.
.. Applicant
V/s
Jindal Iron and Steel Company Ltd.(JISCO) Mumbai
.. Respondent
-----
None for the ApplicantShri.J.D.Mistry i/b. Rajni Associates for theRespondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN&S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ.DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2006.
P.C.:
1.None appears for the Applicant. Shri.Mistryappears on behalf of the Respondent. The Notice of
Motion stands dismissed in default.
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.VAZIFDAR,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.