Ita/17/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Xi v. Podeur Jean Pierre
High Court
18 Oct 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/17/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Xi v. Podeur Jean Pierre
Date of order
18 Oct 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/17/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Xi v. Podeur Jean Pierre, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2001
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
City XI, Bombay .. Applicant.
V/s.
Shri Leonetti Michale, .. Respondent.
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2001
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
City XI, Bombay .. Applicant.
V/s.
Shri Podeur Jean Pierre .. Respondent.
Mr.Parag Vyas for the applicant.
Mr.Rafeeq Peermohideen for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 18TH OCTOBER, 2005.
P.C. :
1. Heard.
2. Counsel on both sides agree that the question
raised in these applications are covered by the judgment
of this Court in the group case of Income Tax
Applications first of such being Income Tax Application
No.202 of 1997 [The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai
City XI, Mumbai V/s. Mr.Estinenne Andre & Others]
decided on 28th January, 1999 and the said decision has
been upheld by the Supreme Court.
3. In this view of the matter as the question
sought to be raised are already answered, the
applications are rejected 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