Itxa/1429/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 Mumbai v. Jyoti Steel Industries
High Court
14 Jun 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1429/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 Mumbai v. Jyoti Steel Industries
Date of order
14 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/1429/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 Mumbai v. Jyoti Steel Industries, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L0D) NO.1946 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-19
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Jyoti Steel Industries
..Respondent.
Mr. D.K. Kamwal for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ.
DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondent, though served.
2.This appeal is filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT dated 13/4/2010 wherein the Tribunal has remanded back the matter to the file of the assessing officer for passing fresh order in the light of the Special Bench decision of the ITAT in M/s. Topman Exports & Ors [2009] 318 ITR(AT) 87 (Mum) (SB). Since the Tribunal has restored
the matter to the file of the assessing officer, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, the Special Bench decision of the ITAT in the case of Topman Exports has been reversed by this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals reported in [2010] 328 ITR 451 (Bom). In this view of the matter, we direct the assessing officer that while reconsidering the issue afresh to take into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (supra).
2.The appeal is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.
(SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, 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.