Itxa/1033/2012 Of Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -23 (2) v. Anand Automobiles
High Court
10 Mar 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1033/2012 Of Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -23 (2) v. Anand Automobiles
Date of order
10 Mar 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1033/2012 Of Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -23 (2) v. Anand Automobiles, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Thus, with this clarification we find that the Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2012
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.-Versus-Anand Automobiles.
..Appellant
..Respondent
...........
Mr.Arvind Pinto, for the Appellant.Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah, for the Respondent.
...........
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
AND GIRISH S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE :- 10[th] March, 2014
PC:
1Having heard both sides at some length and perusing with their assistance the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, we do not find that in remanding the case to the Assessing Officer for decision on merits and in accordance with law, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by making some incidental observations or issuing any directions as to how the decision should be rendered by the Assessing Officer on remand. We agree with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ Assessee that the impugned order is of clean remand and there is no direction as apprehended by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Revenue.
2In such circumstances and reading paragraphs 11 to 13 of the order of the Tribunal, leaves us in no manner of doubt that the Tribunal has not, while remanding the case, exceeded its power and which would
give rise to any substantial question of law for determination and consideration in this Appeal. Thus, with this clarification we find that the Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(GIRISH S. KULKARNI, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, 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.