Itxa/2652/2011 Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exem) v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Midc)
High Court
20 Mar 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2652/2011 Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exem) v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Midc)
Date of order
20 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-06
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/2652/2011 Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exem) v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Midc), the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2005-06, following question has been raised for our consideration:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in allowing assessee's claim to carry forward deficit...
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.2652 OF 2011
The Director of Income Tax (Exem)..Appellant.V/s.Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC)..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
P.C:-
CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 20[th] MARCH, 2013.
In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2005-06, following question has been raised for our consideration:-
Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in allowing assessee's claim to carry forward deficit of Rs.2,01,38,019/-?
2The Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the Respondent-Assessee by following the decision of this Court in the matte of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking reported in 264 ITR 110. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question
S.R.JOSHI
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.