Itl64.13 v. Heard Shri Parchure, Learned Counsel For The
High Court
13 Mar 2015 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Itl64.13 v. Heard Shri Parchure, Learned Counsel For The
Date of order
13 Mar 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itl64.13 v. Heard Shri Parchure, Learned Counsel For The, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.INCOME TAX APPEAL (ITL) NO. 64 OF 2013(The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Smt. Kanika Bajaj) ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (ITL) NO. 119 OF 2013(The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directionsand Registrar's Orders.
Court's or Judge's orders.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. MARCH 13, 2015.
Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel for the
appellant.
On 27.02.2015, after noticing that the controversywas covered by the reported judgment of this Court in thecase of Jyotindra B. Mody, (Income Tax Appeal No. 3741 of2010 decided on 21.09.2011), in view of request of ShriParchure, learned counsel, the matter came to be adjournedto today.
Shri Parchure, learned counsel informs that on23.07.2012, SLP against said adjudication preferred vide SLP(C) No. 9229-9231/2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs.Jyotindra B. Mody etc.) has been dismissed.
Accordingly, as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hasfollowed the reported judgment mentioned supra, we find nocase made out warranting interference. Income Tax Appealsare dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
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.