In Itxa/232/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Thane v. Seema Raju Asrani, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not able to point out to us whether these judgments have been challenged by the revenue or accepted.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.232 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III ..Appellant.
V/s.
Seema Raju Asrani, Ulhasnagar ..Respondent.
Mr.N.R. Prajapati for the Appellant.
CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 31ST JULY, 2008
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. Perusal of the questions of law that has
been framed in the memo of appeal shows that they
are extremely of general nature. Perusal of the
order shows that the tribunal has relied on two
judgments of the tribunal itself entirely. The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not
able to point out to us whether these judgments
have been challenged by the revenue or accepted.
3. We see no reason to interfere with the
impugned order. Hence, rejected.
D.K. DESHMUKH, 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