In Itxa/112/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 Mumbai v. Niharika Synthetics Trading Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2010) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.224 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Niharika Synthetics Trading Pvt. Ltd...Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr. J.D. Mistri, senior Advocate with P.C. Tripathi i/b. Raja Darak for respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ.
DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010
P.C. :-
1.Three questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal. Counsel for the parties state that all the above questions raised in this appeal are covered against the revenue by Division Bench decisions of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1557 of 2007 [CIT V/s. M/s. Castle Investment & Inds. Pvt. Ltd.] decided on 22/07/2008 and Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2967 of 2009 [CIT V/s. M/s. Nirupama Traders Pvt. Ltd.] decided on 06/05/2010. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(R.M. SAVANT, 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