Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. New Horizon Sugar Mills P.ltd, ( 269 Itr
High Court
02 Apr 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. New Horizon Sugar Mills P.ltd, ( 269 Itr
Date of order
02 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. New Horizon Sugar Mills P.ltd, ( 269 Itr, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.In the aforesaid view of the matter, allthe above appeals stand dismissed by questions of law in favour of assessee andagainst the revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.
INCOME TAX APPEAL No.1355/2000.WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL No.1356/2000.WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL No.1357/2000.WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL No.1358/2000.WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL No.1359/2000.WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL No.1360/2000.
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Nashik.
..Appellant.
Vs...Respondent.
Madhukar Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd. Faizpur.
Mr B.M. Chatterjee with Ms. P.P. Bhosalefor the Appellant.
Ms. Asifa Khan i/b J. N. Dialani for theRespondent.
CORAM:DR.S. RADHAKRISHNANAND V.C. DAGA,JJ.DATED:2ND APRIL, 2007.
P.C.:-
1.Heard the learned counsel for theparties.
2.Both the learned counsel categoricallystate that the substantial questions of law the above appeals are squarely covered by thefollowing three judgments:-
in
1.Commissioner of Income-tax vs.
New Horizon Sugar Mills P.Ltd, ( 269 ITR
397, SC).
2.Commissioner of Income-tax vs.
Ambur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.(269 ITR
398,SC).
3.Commissioner of Income-tax vs.
New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt.Ltd.(244 ITR
738,Mad).
3.In view thereof,
the substantial
questions of law are covered in favour of theassessee and against the revenue.
4.In the aforesaid view of the matter, allthe above appeals stand dismissed by questions of law in favour of assessee andagainst the revenue.
(V.C. DAGA,J.)
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
answering
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