Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1238/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itxa/1238/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2 v. M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.ltd

High Court 09 Oct 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1238/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2 v. M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.ltd
Date of order
09 Oct 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1238/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2 v. M/S. Kalimati Investment Co.ltd, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly the Appeal fails and it is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

sbw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1238 OF 2012WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-2-Versus-M/s. Kalimati Investment Co.Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondents. ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE :- 9[th] OCTOBER, 2014 P.C.: 1]The two questions of law stated to be arising from the order of the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No.2553/Mum/2011 dated 9[th] May, 2012, have been answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. There is no dispute in that regard because the Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81. Thereafter the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer and who has applying ratio of the Division Bench, granted the claim of the Assessee. 1/2 2]The fresh order in that regard is placed on record by Mr. Jasani and we take on file a copy thereof and marked “X” for identification. 3]In relation to the third question, the same has been answered by us as well, in the Assessee's own case, namely, Income Tax Appeal No.1308 of 2012. Following our order passed today in the Assessee's own case, we hold that the third question is also not a substantial question of law. Accordingly the Appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) wadhwa 2/2
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan