Itxa/1624/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Kolhapur v. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli
High Court
30 Jun 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1624/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Kolhapur v. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli
Date of order
30 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1624/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Kolhapur v. Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sangli, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In this view of the matter, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
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 JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1892 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant.
V/s.
Vishwasrao Naik Sakhar Karkhana Ltd...Respondent.
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1896 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant.
V/s.
Rajarambapu Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd...Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 30TH JUNE, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that so far as question (a) to (h) are concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari SakharKarkhana Ltd. reported in [2008] 301 I.T.R. 191.
2.So far question (i) is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment delivered by this Court on 30th June, 2009 in the case of The Commissioner of Income TaxV/s. Kisanveer Satara Sakar Karkhana Ltd. in Income TaxAppeal No.930 of 2008.
3.In this view of the matter, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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.
EaseValue