In Itxa/1450/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 v. M/S. Doubledot Finance Ltd, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The only question was whether the Commissioner erred in exercising his powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, so as to hold that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and in so far as it prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Decision: The Appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1450 OF 2012
…
Commissioner of Income Tax-4...Appellantv/s.M/s.Doubledot Finance Ltd....Respondent
…
Mr.A.R.Malhotra with Mr.N.M.Kazi for the Appellant.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 10 DECEMBER 2014
P.C.
This Appeal challenges the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench dated 14 March 2009 in Income Tax Appeal No.3966/Mum/2008. The Assessment Year under consideration is 1999-2000.
2.
The only question was whether the Commissioner erred
in exercising his powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, so as to hold that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and in so far as it prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal in dismissing the Revenue's Appeal placed reliance upon its earlier order in the case of this very Assessee delivered on 14 December 2009 in Income Tax Appeal No.2581/M/2008. That
itxa-1450-12.doc
order was challenged by the Revenue before this Court. But the Revenue's Appeal was dismissed on 21 January 2013 by the Division Bench of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.935 of 2011. Mr.Malhotra has fairly placed a copy of this order before us. Following the Division Bench order, we proceed to hold that the identical question raised is not substantial question of law. The Appeal is devoid of merits and is 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.