Babubhai Narottamdas & Co v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(4) & Anr
High Court
07 Sep 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Babubhai Narottamdas & Co v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(4) & Anr
Date of order
07 Sep 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Babubhai Narottamdas & Co v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 24(3)(4) & Anr, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal is dismissed in limine.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2002
Babubhai Narottamdas & Co.
vs.
1. The Income-tax Officer,Ward 24(3)(4) & anr.Ward 24(3)(4) & anr.
Appellant
Respondents
Mr.M. Subramanian i/b. Mr.V.S. Hedade for theappellant.
Mr.R.V.Desai with Ms.S.V. Bharucha and Mr.VijayKantharia i/b. Mr.Pankaj Kapur for the respondents.
CORAM: R. M. LODHA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 7th September 2004
P.C.
Heard Mr.M. Subramanian, the learned counsel for
the appellant.
2. The Tribunal in the impugned order observed thus:
"5. We have carefully considered thesubmissions made by the rival parties. Theoriginal firm was constituted on 5.4.1980wherein Smt. Rasilaben Kantilal was also apartner. Smt. Rasilaben Kantilal later onwanted to retire from the firm but somedisputes arose amongst the partners for thedissolution of the firm. Smt.RasilabenKantilal moved Bombay High Court fordissolution and account of the firm. This wasdone on 3.5.1985. Therefore, the contentionof the learned counsel that the firm wasdissolved by 9.10.1984 is without any basis.The order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Courtalso confirms that the firm was in existence
9.10.1984, but continued to be in existence until October
1985. The consideration of the matter by the Tribunal
is concluded on facts.
4. No substantial question of law arises.
5. Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. LODHA,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.