In Itxa/1378/2012 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 24 v. M/S. Cello Stationery Products, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: It is the same question which is raised for the assessment year 2007-2008 in the present Appeal. katkam k 2In the aforesaid circumstances and finding that the earlier orders in two Appeals bearing No.837 of 2011 and 838 of 2011 in relation to assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 would bind the R...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
k
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1378 OF 2012
Commissioner of Income Tax 24
...Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Cello Stationery Products
...Respondent.
Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI ANDA.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED :
28 NOVEMBER, 2014.
P.C.:
1Both sides agree that M/s. Cello Stationery Products which is the Respondent Assessee before us was also a Respondent in Income Tax Appeal No.837 of 2011 which was disposed of on 8[th] April, 2014. The identical finding and question raised pertinent to the same Assessee was noted and in the elaborate order of the Division Bench to which one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) is a party. The Division Bench concluded that the Revenue’s Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is the same question which is raised for the assessment year 2007-2008 in the present Appeal.
katkam
k
2In the aforesaid circumstances and finding that the earlier orders in two Appeals bearing No.837 of 2011 and 838 of 2011 in relation to assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 would bind the Revenue that we proceed to dismiss this Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, 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.