Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Cit (249) Itr 265 (Bom
High Court
10 Jan 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Cit (249) Itr 265 (Bom
Date of order
10 Jan 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Co. Pvt. Ltd v. Cit (249) Itr 265 (Bom, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In view of the above referred judgment, the issue is now concluded and there is no substantial question of law involved in this Appeal, hence the same stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Income Tax Appeal No. 199 of 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
V/s.
Shri S.V. Ghatalia & Associates .. Respondent
Mr. A.M. Sethna for the Appellant
None present for the Respondent
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 10.01.2005
DATED : 10.01.2005
DATED : 10.01.2005
P.C.:-
P.C.:-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. It
appears that the issue involved in the present Appeal is
already covered by our judgment in Cadell Weaving Mills
Cadell Weaving Mills
Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (249) ITR 265 (BOM).
Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (249) ITR 265 (BOM). In view
of the above referred judgment, the issue is now
concluded and there is no substantial question of law
involved in this Appeal, hence the same stands dismissed.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the
Tribunal has preferred a Special Leave Petition and the
issue is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.