In Itxa/1033/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, -12 Mumbai v. Pratiksha Enterprises, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 itxa1033-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Pratiksha Enterprises
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.
Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the questions sought to be raised in this appeal are answered against the revenue by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2010] 322 I.T.R. 158 (SC). In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, 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.
EaseValue