Case LawHigh Court › In The Matter Betweencommissioner Of Inc...

In The Matter Betweencommissioner Of Income Tax -2, Mumbai v. M/S. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt Ltd

High Court 05 Aug 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
In The Matter Betweencommissioner Of Income Tax -2, Mumbai v. M/S. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt Ltd
Date of order
05 Aug 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In In The Matter Betweencommissioner Of Income Tax -2, Mumbai v. M/S. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 479 OF 2019 ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai .. Applicant In the matter betweenCommissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai Vs M/s. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt Ltd ................... Mr. Tejveer Singh for the ApplicantMr. Tejveer Singh for the Applicant Ms. Aarti Sathe for the RespondentMs. Aarti Sathe for the Respondent .. Appellant .. Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 5, 2019. P.C.: 1.For the reasons set out in the afÏdavit in support of theNotice of Motion, the order dated 11.3.2019 passed by thisCourt dismissing the Income Tax Appeal for default, isquashed and set aside. The Income Tax Appeal is restoredto file after condonation of delay in filing this Notice ofMotion. Place the appeal for hearing in normal course. 2.The Notice of Motion is allowed on the above terms anddisposed of accordingly. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, 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