Case LawHigh Court › Idea Cellular Ltd v. The Assistant Direc...

Idea Cellular Ltd v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax

High Court 13 Aug 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Idea Cellular Ltd v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax
Date of order
13 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Idea Cellular Ltd v. The Assistant Director Of Income Tax, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Hence, Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.755 OF 2008 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.755 OF 2008 Idea Cellular Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax .. Respondent Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 13th August, 2008 DATE : 13th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the order impugned in this Appeal has already been recalled by the Tribunal by its order passed in M.A.774/Mum/2007 dated 27.02.2008. In view thereof, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks leave to withdraw this Appeal as it has now become infructuous. Hence, Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed as such. Permissible Court fees be refunded to the Appellant as per the Rules. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan