Case LawHigh Court › Ita/23/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Ita/23/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Tata Chemicals Ltd

High Court 25 Oct 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/23/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Tata Chemicals Ltd
Date of order
25 Oct 2005
Assessment year(s)
1977-78
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/23/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Tata Chemicals Ltd, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

-= : 1 : =- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2001 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.23 OF 2001 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Applicant. V/s. M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd, ..Respondent. Mr.Ashok Kotangale for applicant. Mr.P.C.Tripathi for respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 25TH OCTOBER, 2005. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 25TH OCTOBER, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue. Having gone through the order of the Tribunal, we have noticed the following observations made by the Tribunal:- " On appeal the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the CIT (A) by following its earlier decisions for assessment years 1977-78 and 1980-81 in assessee’s own case. The revenue had sought reliance in assessment year 1977-78 on similar issue which has been rejected in R.A.No.2448/Bom/ 84 vide order dated 28th April, 1980. For assessment year 1980-81 also reference has been rejected in R.A. No.2600/Bom/88 vide order dated 30th August, 1989." 2. Reading of the aforesaid part of the order -= : 2 : =- clearly indicates that so far as the Revenue is concerned, the orders passed by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, in the earlier assessment years have been accepted by the Revenue. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. 3. Application is, thus dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C. DAGA, J.) (V.C. DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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