In In M/S.coftab Exports v. Ito (Ita, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: DCIT (65 TTJ 422) Learned counsel for the revenue states that he has no instructions as to whether the revenue has filed any appeal against above three decisions.
Decision: The appeals, are therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.428 OF 2006
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.449 OF 2006
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2007
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.641 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income-tax-24 ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Nova Impex ..Respondent.
Mr.R. Ashokan for the appellant.
Mr.Rakesh Kumar i/by Legal Vision for the
respondent.
CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 19TH MARCH, 2009.
P.C. :
1. It appears that in all these matters, the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘tribunal’ for
short) has relied upon the judgment in assessee’s
own case for the assessment year 1998-99. Learned
counsel for the appellant states that against the
said order of the tribunal, the revenue has not
filed any appeal in view of low tax effect.
2. In the order for assessment year 1998-99,
reference is made to the following three judgments:
i) SMC-I Mumbai Bench decision dated 7-3-2001
in M/s.Coftab Exports Vs. ITO (ITA No.916/Nyn/99)
ii) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in case
of ITO V. Jagraon Exports(124 Taxman 220)
iii) Decision of ITAT Pune bench in the case of
Egale Flast Industriex V. DCIT (65 TTJ 422)
Learned counsel for the revenue states that he has
no instructions as to whether the revenue has filed
any appeal against above three decisions. Since
the decision of the tribunal is based on above 3
decisions and there is nothing to indicate that the
revenue has challenged those decisions, we do not
see any merit in these appeals. Moreover, nothing
is brought to our notice as to how the order of the
tribunal gives rise to substantial questions of
law.
3. The appeals, are therefore, dismissed.
(Judge)
(Judge)
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.