Commissioner Of Income Tax-3,Mumbai v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.,Mumbai
High Court
12 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-3,Mumbai v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.,Mumbai
Date of order
12 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
1987-88
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-3,Mumbai v. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.,Mumbai, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order passed by the ITAT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this Appeal.
Decision: Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6844 OF 2010
Commissioner of Income Tax-3,Mumbai.
..Appellant.
Vs.
Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.,Mumbai.
..Respondent.
....
Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the Appellant.
Mr. J. D. Mistry Sr. Counsel a/w. Atul K. Jasani, for the Respondent.
....
P.C.
CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 12th JANUARY, 2012.
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order passed by the ITAT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is the question raised in this Appeal.
2.The ITAT following its orders in the case of assessee for A.Y. 1987-88, 2001-02 and 2002-03 has deleted similar orders passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Admittedly, the Appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of the ITAT for A.Y. 1987-88, 2001-02 and 2002-03 have been dismissed by this Court for
want of removal of office objections. Thus, the orders passed by the ITAT for those Assessment Years have attained finality. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
(A. R. JOSHI, 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