In Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 } v. A.k.menon, J.) (S.c.dharmadhikari, J, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Since these question have also been answered and against the Revenue by this Judgment and nothing contrary being placed on record, we proceed to dismiss this Appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2013
Commissioner of Income Tax-10}AppellantversusM/s. Reliance Infrastructure and}Consultants Ltd.}Respondent
Mr. Arvind Pinto with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.
Mr. R. Murlidhar with Mr. B. G. yewale i/b. M/s. Rajesh Shah and Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM :-S. C. DHARMADHIKARI &A. K. MENON, JJ.DATED :-MARCH 30, 2015
P.C. :-
Two questions of law termed as substantial and arising out of the impugned order dated 17[th] October, 2012 for the assessment year 2006-07 are both covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court. That is extensively referred in the question itself at page 6 of the paper book. Since these question have also been answered and against the Revenue by this Judgment and nothing contrary being placed on record, we proceed to dismiss this Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
(A.K.MENON, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, 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.