In Itxa/118/2002 Of The Commissioner Ofincome Tax,Mumbai v. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd Mubai, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Considering the above the question as framed would not arise and consequently the appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Mrs. P.P. Bhosale with Mr.B.M.Chatterji for theAppellant.
Mr.S.J.Mehta i/by S.P. Mehta for the Respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY,2008.
PC :
arise.
1984-85. The counsel for the respondent has brought ourattention that revenue has challenged the order of thetribunal for the assessment year 1988-89. Havingaccepted the order of the tribunal for the assessmentyear 1984-85, it is not open to the revenue in respect
of the same issue to raise this question in this appeal.
Consequently this question also would not arise.
4. In so far as question (iii) is concerned, thelearned tribunal relied on the case of the assessee forthe assessment year 1982-83 and various other years.Nothing has been brought to our attention that thetribunal has challenged the assessment order for theannual year 1982-83 and 1984-85 on the said question.
Considering the above the question as framed would not
arise and consequently the appeal stands dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO, 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