In Itxa/151/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,City-22, Mumbai v. Mahindara J.parekh, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Specially for the reasons stated in paragraph 5 of the said order, which is based on material produced before the Assessing Officer, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this Appeal, the same stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Income Tax Appeal No. 151 of 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
V/s.
Shri Mahendra J. Parekh .. Respondent
Mr. R. Ashokan for the Appellant
None present for the Respondent
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 10.01.2005
DATED : 10.01.2005
DATED : 10.01.2005
P.C.:-
P.C.:-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. Perused
the order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal. Specially for the reasons stated in
paragraph 5 of the said order, which is based on material
produced before the Assessing Officer, we do not find any
substantial question of law involved in this Appeal, the
same stands dismissed.
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.