Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2109/2009 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2109/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 Mumbai v. M/S. Shivaji Roller Flour Mills Ltd

High Court 15 Oct 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2109/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 Mumbai v. M/S. Shivaji Roller Flour Mills Ltd
Date of order
15 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
2002-03, 1998-99
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/2109/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -10 Mumbai v. M/S. Shivaji Roller Flour Mills Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2109 OF 2009 J.S.Saluja for the appellant. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeal. 2.The question of law sought to be raised was also involved in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal in its judgment has relied upon the said order meant for the assessment year 2002-03 and also followed its earlier order for the assessment year 1998-99; wherein same issue of addition on account of suppression of sales resulting from milling gain was involved. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Appeals preferred against the orders of the Tribunal in respect of aforesaid assessment years have been dismissed by this Court (see orders dated 18[th] December, 2007 in Notice of Motion Nos.4147 and 4148 of 2006 and order dated 24[th] September, 2009 in ITXA No.1767/2009). In this view of the matter, the present appeal can hardly be said to be an appeal involving substantial question of law. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan