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.)
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.