Income Tax v. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (Ita Nos.2064
High Court
21 Nov 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Income Tax v. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (Ita Nos.2064
Date of order
21 Nov 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Income Tax v. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (Ita Nos.2064, the High Court (2005) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Both the Appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Income Tax Appeal No.626 of 2003
WITH
Income Tax Appeal (Lodging) No.421 of 2003
The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Appellant
v/s.
M/s.Sandoz Textiles & Trading
Ltd. ... ... Respondent
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for appellant.
Mr.J.D. Mistry i/by Raj Darak for respondent.
(In both matters)
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21st November 2005
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Kotangale for the appellant in
both the above matters. Mr.Mistry appears for the
respondent.
2. The first question sought to be raised
has already been decided in Joint Commissioner of
Income Tax vs. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (ITA Nos.2064
Income Tax vs. Vimal Fabrics Ltd. (ITA Nos.2064to 2066 of 1999) decided on 22nd April 2002. ThatVimal Fabrics’scase (supra) has been accepted.
to 2066 of 1999)
being so, the revenue cannot be allowed to agitate
the same issue once again since the decision in
Vimal Fabrics’s
3. As far as the second issue which is
sought to be raised is concerned, the same has
-2-
CIT vs.
been decided in favour of the assessee in CIT vs.
CIT vs.
J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR723. This being the position, no interference is
J.K. Investors (Bom) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR
723
called for. Both the Appeals are dismissed.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.