Itxa/1114/2013 Of Director Of Income Tax (It) - I v. M/S. Apollo Consulting Services Corporation
High Court
04 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1114/2013 Of Director Of Income Tax (It) - I v. M/S. Apollo Consulting Services Corporation
Date of order
04 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2003-04, 2004-05
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1114/2013 Of Director Of Income Tax (It) - I v. M/S. Apollo Consulting Services Corporation, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.Accordingly, 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.2123 OF 2012
Director of Income Tax (IT)-I, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Apollo Consulting Services Corporation
..Respondent.
Mr. Teejveer Singh for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013
P.C. :-
1.In this appeal for the assessment year 2005-06, the following question of law has been raised for our consideration:-
“ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the ITAT is correct in cancelling the order u/s.263 when the fact that the department in the case of, ISPL the prayer, had held that the transaction being FTS in nature tax was required to be deducted, show that the DIT was correct in holding the AO's order as erroneous ? ”
itxal-2123-12
2.Revenue has accepted the stand of the respondent-assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 in view of the order CIT (A) for the assessment year 2004-05. Counsel for the parties inform us that the revenue has accepted the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2004-05 and has not carried the matter in further appeal. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question as the revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing features in the present appeal from the issues in assessment year 2004-05.
3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.