Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/222/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/222/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City-I, Mumbai v. Allana Pharma Chem Ltd

High Court 10 Jan 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/222/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City-I, Mumbai v. Allana Pharma Chem Ltd
Date of order
10 Jan 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/222/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City-I, Mumbai v. Allana Pharma Chem Ltd, the High Court (2005) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Income Tax Appeal No. 222 of 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant V/s. M/s. Allana Pharma Chem Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. A.M. Sethna 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. The learned counsel for the Appellant fairly states that the issue involved in the above matter has already been covered by judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 261 261 ITR 275. ITR 275. In view thereof, the learned counsel for the Appellant seeks leave to withdraw the Appeal. The Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. Permissible Court fees be refunded to the Appellant as per rules. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (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.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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