Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu v. M/S. Lupin Limited
High Court
02 Apr 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu v. M/S. Lupin Limited
Date of order
02 Apr 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu v. M/S. Lupin Limited, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2017
Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU)..Appellant
Versus
M/s. Lupin Limited
..Respondent
...................
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
Mr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr. Hiten Chande i/by PDS Legal for theRespondentMr. Nishant Thakkar a/w Mr. Hiten Chande i/by PDS Legal for theRespondent
...................
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 2, 2019.
P.C.:
1.This appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge thejudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“theTribunal” for short) dated 17.2.2016.
2.At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondentassessee brought to our notice an order dated 16.4.2018passed by the Tribunal in Misc. Application filed by theassessee. The Tribunal allowed the Misc. Application andrecalled its original judgment. Learned counsel furtherpointed out that the Tribunal thereafter, passed fresh order
dated 13.6.2018 again dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.Learned counsel stated that the Revenue has already filedappeal against the fresh order of the Tribunal.
3.The orders dated 16.4.2018 and 13.6.2018 passed bythe Tribunal are taken on record and marked “X and X1”respectively for identification.
4. In view of the fact that the judgment of the Tribunalimpugned in this appeal no longer survives, this appeal isdisposed of having become infructuous.
[ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, 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.