In Itxa/2665/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1,Mum v. Shree Santh Tukaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.In this view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.155 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
Shree Santh Tukaram Sahakari Karkhana Ltd...Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that so far as the question (a)& (b) are concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Manjara Shetkari SahakariSakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported in [2008] 301 I.T.R. 191.
2.So far question (c) is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court delivered on 30th June, 2009 in the case of The Commissioner of Income TaxV/s. Kisanveer Satara Sakar Karkhana Ltd. in Income Tax
Appeal No.930 of 2008.
3.In this view of the matter, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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