In Case Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bharat R. Ruia (Huf) Reported, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
k
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5605 OF 2010
M/s. Supratha Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. .. AppellantVs.Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 5 (3), Mumbai& anr... Respondents.
Mr. S.J. Mehta for the appellant.
Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the respondents.
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 20TH OCTOBER, 2011.
P.C.
Counsel for the parties state that the questions raised in this Appeal
covered against the Appellant Assessee by the decision of this Court in the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat R. Ruia (HUF) reported
in [2011] 337 ITR 52 (Bom).
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. TATED, 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