In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central – Ii v. M/S.kanakia Construction Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: For the reasons stated therein, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.213 OF 2011
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central – II..Appellant.Versus
M/s.Kanakia Construction Private Limited
..Respondent.
Ms.Padma Diwakar for the appellant.Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2628 OF 2010
ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2629 OF 2010ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2630 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Pune
..Appellant
VersusM/s.Veena Developers..Respondent.
Ms.Anamika Malhotra i/by Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Ajay R. Singh for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] February, 2011.
1.Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the questions raised in the above appeals are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1194 of 2010 (CIT V/s. Brahma Associates) dated 22-02-2011. For the reasons stated therein, all the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
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