Dated v. Smifs Securities Ltd. Reported In (2012) 348 Itr 302 (Sc
High Court
28 Nov 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Dated v. Smifs Securities Ltd. Reported In (2012) 348 Itr 302 (Sc
Date of order
28 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Dated v. Smifs Securities Ltd. Reported In (2012) 348 Itr 302 (Sc, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: Smifs Securities Ltd. reported in (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC). katkam k 2As a result of the above discussion, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, it is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
k
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1443 OF 2012
Commissioner of Income Tax 10,
...Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Koch Cehmical TechnologyGroup Pvt. Ltd.
...Respondent.
Mr. Arvind Pintos for the Appellant.Mr. K. Gopal a/w Ms. Neha Paranjpe i/b Mr. Jatendra Singh for Respondent.
CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI ANDA.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED :
28 NOVEMBER, 2014.
P.C.:
1In the light of the order dated 5[th] March, 2013 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.1714 of 2011, the only question termed as substantial question of law at page 4 of the paper book stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. On going through this Judgment and Order, it is apparent that this Court also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. reported in (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC).
katkam
k
2As a result of the above discussion, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, 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.
EaseValue