In Heard.perused Appeals v. J.p.devadhar,J, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: Following the same reasons, the above appeals also stand dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.2650 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Flamingo Overseas
..Appellant
..Respondent
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.2651 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Vipinchandra Aggarwal HUF
..Appellant
..Respondent
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for appellant.None for respondents.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 14TH DECEMBER,2009
DATE :
P.C.
1.Heard.Perused appeals.
Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeals.
2.Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly states that the identical issue involved in the ITXA No.1497 of 2009 in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Metal Concepts India has already been considered by this Court and the appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26[th] August, 2009. Following the same reasons, the above appeals also stand dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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