Itxa/2318/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 Mumbai v. Salim A. Lalani
High Court
27 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2318/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 Mumbai v. Salim A. Lalani
Date of order
27 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/2318/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 Mumbai v. Salim A. Lalani, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: In this Appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-04 by the Revenue, the basis issue has been raised for our consideration:- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.
Decision: 3 Accordingly, appeal is dismissed 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.2318 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-19..Appellant.V/s.Shri Salim A. Lalani..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. N. R. Mody i/b. Rustamji & Ginwala, for the Respondent.
P.C:-
CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 27[th] FEBRUARY, 2013.
In this Appeal for the Assessment Year 2003-04 by the
Revenue, the basis issue has been raised for our consideration:-
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2Counsel for the parties states that on merits, the issue is covered in favour of the Respondent-Assessee by the decision of this Court
in the matter of CIT(A) v/s. M/s. Brahma Associates being Income Tax Appeal No.1194 of 2010 decided on 22[nd] February, 2011. In view of the
above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
3
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,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.
EaseValue