Itxa/213/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-17, Mumbai v. Smt. Aiman S. Lokhandwala
High Court
10 Jan 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/213/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-17, Mumbai v. Smt. Aiman S. Lokhandwala
Date of order
10 Jan 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/213/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax City-17, Mumbai v. Smt. Aiman S. Lokhandwala, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The Appeal 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. 213 of 2004
The Commissioner of Income tax .. Appellant
V/s.
Smt. Aiman Salimbhai Lokhandawalla .. Respondent
Mr. R.V. Desai with Ms. S.V. Bharucha 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 17.7.2003 passed by the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal has proceeded on the
factual basis. We do not find any substantial question
of law involved in the above. The Appeal stands
dismissed.
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.