Commissioner Of Income Tax City-8, Mumbai v. M/S. K Mohan & Co. (Eyelets) Pvt. Ltd
High Court
16 Nov 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax City-8, Mumbai v. M/S. K Mohan & Co. (Eyelets) Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
16 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax City-8, Mumbai v. M/S. K Mohan & Co. (Eyelets) Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Decision: 4The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [J P DEVADHAR, J]
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
lgc
1 ITXA NO.690/09.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.690 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income TaxCity-8, MumbaiversusM/s. K Mohan & Co. (Eyelets) Pvt. Ltd.
: Appellant
: Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
CORAM :J P DEVADHAR AND R M SAVANT, JJ.DATED :16[th] NOVEMBER 2010
P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue.
Perused the Appeal.
2
2This Appeal is filed by the revenue, against the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 05/06/2006. By the said order, the Tribunal remanded the matter to file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the Special Bench decision in the case of Lalsons Enterprisesreported in89 ITD 25. Correctness of the said decision has been considered and disapproved by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income v/s. Asian Star Co. Ltd.reported in 326 ITR 56.
3In these circumstances, since the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to entertain the present Appeal . However, we direct that the Assessing Officer, while giving effect to the order of the Income Tax
2 ITXA NO.690/09.
Appellate Tribunal, shall take into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of Asian Star Co. Ltd. (supra).
4The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
[R.M.SAVANT, 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.