Cit v. M/S V.r.v. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd
High Court
19 Aug 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
Cit v. M/S V.r.v. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd
Date of order
19 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
2001-2002
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Cit v. M/S V.r.v. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 09.08.2011 % Judgment delivered on: 19.08.2011
+ ITA No. 117/2008
CIT
...... Appellant
Vs
M/S V.R.V. BREWERIES & BOTTLING INDUSTRIES Ltd.
..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ms Rashmi Chopra, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Ms Kavita Jha & Mr Somnath Shukla, Advocates.
CORAM :- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? in the Digest ?
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. This appeal pertains to assessment year 2001-2002. The Tribunal by way of the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal of the assessee by following its own order for assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Therefore, in view of our decision in ITA Nos. 594/2005, 646/2005 and 559/2006 passed today, we have dismissed the appeals of the revenue. The same fate will follow in the captioned appeal.
2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AUGUST 19, 2011 kk/yg
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,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.