In Itxa/1706/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I,Pune v. Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter no substantialquestion of law is involved.4.All the appeals are dismissed in liminewith no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1501 OF 2007WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1502 OF 2007WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (LDG.) NO. 1501 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income-tax.
V/s.
Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ... Respondent.
... Appellant.
B.M.Chatterjee for the appellant.
Suresh Kumar for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 28th April 2009.
P.C. :----
.The office objections raised by the
registry are over-ruled.2.Heard learned counsel for the rivalparties. Perused appeal papers.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the Revenuefairly states that the identical question of lawsought to be raised in all these appeals is covered bythe judgment of the this Court in the case of C.I.T.v. Manjara Shetkari , SSK Ltd.(2008) 301 ITR 191(Bom) against the Revenue and in favour of theassessee. In this view of the matter no substantialquestion of law is involved.4.All the appeals are dismissed in liminewith no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(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