Case Of C.i.t v. J.k.investors (Bombay) Ltd
High Court
09 Apr 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Case Of C.i.t v. J.k.investors (Bombay) Ltd
Date of order
09 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Case Of C.i.t v. J.k.investors (Bombay) Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1086 OF 2003
The Commissioner of Indocme-tax,
Mumbai. ... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Paville Fashions P.Ltd.,
Mumbai. ... Respondent.
A.D.Kango for the appellant.
F.B.Andhyarjuna, senior counsel with Ms.R.M.
Sidhwa for the respondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATED : 9th April 2007.
DATED : 9th April 2007.
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the parties fairly
state that the issue involved in the above appeal is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the
case of C.I.T. v. J.K.Investors (Bombay) Ltd.
C.I.T. v. J.K.Investors (Bombay) Ltd., 248
ITR 723 in favour of assessee and against the
revenue. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(V.C.DAGA J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(V.C.DAGA J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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