Exemption) Mumbai v. Institute Of Banking Personnel
High Court
04 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Exemption) Mumbai v. Institute Of Banking Personnel
Date of order
04 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Exemption) Mumbai v. Institute Of Banking Personnel, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1510 of 2005
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.617 OF 2005
The Director of Income-tax
(Exemption) Mumbai ..Appellant
Vs.
Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection ...Respondent
Mr. P.S.Sahadevan,for the Appellant.
Mr.K.B. Bhujle for the respondent
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATED: 4TH SEPTEMEBR, 2007
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
P.C.
. There is a delay of 308 days in preferring
the Appeal. There is an affidavit in support of
Smt. Rita K. Dokania. Respondents have filed a
reply of Shri Manohar V. Desai, Deputy General
Manager. In the said affidavit it is set out that
in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.
Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
reported in (2001) 131 Taxman 386 this Court has
held that the Respondent (assessee) is a Charitable
Trust and having the benefit of Section 11 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. In our opinion considering that the issue
having been decided and even otherwise the cause
would not amount to sufficient cause, Motion has to
be dismissed. Hence Motion dismissed.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, 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.