In Itr/43/2001 Of Imeco Ultrasonics v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-Xi, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Decision: 2.Reference is disposed of in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 43 OF 2001
M/s. Imeco UltrasonicsVersusThe Commissioner of Income Tax
… Applicant
…Respondent
None for the parties.
PC:-
CORAM:M.S.SANKLECHA, &MR. RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.DATED:17TH JANUARY 2018
1.This Reference at the instance of the Assessee was on board yesterday. None appeared for the Applicant in support of the Reference. Consequently, this Reference was adjourned to today and listed under the caption for dismissal. Today also none appears for the Applicant in support of the Reference. It appears that Applicant is not interested in prosecuting the Reference. Accordingly, the Reference is returned unanswered.
2.Reference is disposed of in the above terms.
( RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J. )
(M.S.SANKLECHA,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