Itxa/3055/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 Mumbai v. Tata Investmsdent Corpn Ltd
High Court
15 Nov 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3055/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 Mumbai v. Tata Investmsdent Corpn Ltd
Date of order
15 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itxa/3055/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 Mumbai v. Tata Investmsdent Corpn Ltd, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The 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
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3055 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Tata Investment Corporation Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr. Ajit Shah i/b. C.D. Gamare for respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ.
DATED : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2010
P.C. :-
1.In this case, the Tribunal following its decision in the case of M/s.Castle Investments & Industries Pvt. Ltd. allowed the claim of the assessee under 80M of the Income Tax Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the ITAT in Castle Investments & Industries Pvt. Ltd. has been admittedly dismissed by this Court on 22nd July, 2008 (Income Tax Appeal No.1557 of 2007). Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that SLP filed by the Revenue against the said decision has also been dismissed by the Apex Court on 9[th] April, 2010. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(R.M. SAVANT, 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