Commissioner Of Income Tax Udaipur v. M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd Udaipur
High Court
17 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax Udaipur v. M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd Udaipur
Date of order
17 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax Udaipur v. M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd Udaipur, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR --------------------------------------------------------
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 65 of 2002
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UDAIPUR
V/S
M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD UDAIPUR
Mr. KK BISSA, for the appellant / petitioner
Mr. ANJAY KOTHARI, for the respondent
Date of Order : 17.3.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J.
ORDER
-----
It is contended by learned counsel for therespondent that the controversy involved in the presentcase is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble theSupreme Court dated 23.2.99 passed in Civil Appeal No.147-150 of 1994 “Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore Vs.Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.”
A look at the impugned order of the learnedTribunal shows that the learned Tribunal had based hisjudgment on the decision in the matter of Indian TelephoneIndustries Ltd. as decided by the Bangalore Bench of ITAT,which precisely has been subject matter of challenge beforethe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeals, and bythis judgment dated 23.2.99, the judgment of the BangaloreBench of the Tribunal has been affirmed.
- 2 -
controversy involved in the present case is squarelycovered by the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Theappeal thus, does not involve any substantial question oflaw. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.
/tarun/
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.