Itxa/144/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mum-City-11 v. Legal Hairs Of Late Dr (Mrs) S.r.pandit
High Court
30 Aug 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/144/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mum-City-11 v. Legal Hairs Of Late Dr (Mrs) S.r.pandit
Date of order
30 Aug 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/144/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Mum-City-11 v. Legal Hairs Of Late Dr (Mrs) S.r.pandit, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-= : 1 : =-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.775 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.775 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Legal Heirs of late Dr.(Mrs.)
S.R. Pandit ..Respondents.
Mr.Pankaj Kapoor with Parag Vyas for appellant.
Mr.J.D.Mistry with Vasanti Patel for respondents.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 30TH AUGUST, 2005.
DATED : 30TH AUGUST, 2005.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. By consent of parties, appeal is taken up
for final hearing on admission.
2. It is not in dispute that the issue sought
to be raised in the present appeal is squarely covered
by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in C.I.T.
V/s. ACE Builders (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 195
Current Tax Reporters Report, 1 to which one of us
(J.P.Devadhar, J.) was a party.
-= : 2 : =-
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant tried to distinguish the above Judgment
delivered by this Court in the Ace Builders, however,
he could not take his submissions to the logical end.
4. We are of the confirmed view that the issue
sought to be raised is squarely covered by the
aforesaid Judgment of this Court. There is thus no
merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed in limine
with no order as to costs.
(V.C. DAGA, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.