Itxa/1236/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 16 v. Smt. Mayuri C. Shah
High Court
12 Nov 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1236/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 16 v. Smt. Mayuri C. Shah
Date of order
12 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1236/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 16 v. Smt. Mayuri C. Shah, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
k
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1236 OF 2012
Commissioner of Income Tax 16
..Appellant
-Versus-Smt. Mayuri C. Shah
..Respondent
...........
Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the Appellant.Mr. Jitendra Jain i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent.
...........
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A. A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE :- 12[th] NOVEMBER, 2014
P.C.:
1This Appeal by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench on 30[th] November 2011.
2In dismissing the Revenue Appeal the Tribunal relied upon its own
order in the case of Jayendra H. Shah and Mr. Chandrakant H. Shah.
3It is conceded that in both cases namely, Jayendra H. Shah and Mr. Chandrakant H. Shah, Revenue brought Appeals before this Court being Income Tax Appeal Nos.585 of 2012 and 714 of 2012.
katkam
4The Appeals of the Commissioner of Income Tax to which both Jayendra H. Shah and Mr. Chandrakant H. Shah were parties were heard by this Court and a Division Bench to which one of us is a party (S.C. Dharmadhikar, J.) dismissed these Appeals by detailed orders passed on 11[th] July, 2014 and 13[th] August, 2014.
5The present Appeal raises identical questions and dealt with by this Court in the aforementioned two orders. For the reasons that have been set out therein that this Appeal also does not raise any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A. A. SAYED, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
2/2
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.