Ita/26/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Tata Chemicals Ltd
High Court
21 Nov 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/26/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Tata Chemicals Ltd
Date of order
21 Nov 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/26/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Tata Chemicals Ltd, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
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 Application No.26 of 2001
The Commmissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai City I, Mumbai. ... Applicant
v/s.
M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd. .. ... Respondent
Mr.Parag Vyas for the applicant.
Mr.P.C. Tripathi for the respondent.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21st November 2005
DATED : 21st November 2005
P.C. :
P.C. :
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Vyas for the applicant.
Mr.Tripathi appears for the respondent.
2. The Counsel for the revenue accepts that
the issue which is sought to be raised in this
Application is covered against it in the decision
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in
Income Tax Application No.23 of 2001 decided on
Income Tax Application No.23 of 2001 decided on25th October 2005 between the Commissioner ofIncome Tax and M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd.
25th October 2005 between the Commissioner of
Income Tax and M/s.Tata Chemicals Ltd.
3. In view thereof, there is no reason to
interfere. Application stands rejected.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
-2-
(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.