In Itxa/336/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,City-Iv,Bombay v. M/S Ion Exchange (I) Bombay, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Issue: Mr.Kontangale appearing for the Income Tax Department in both the above Appeals, in spite of several adjournments, is not in a position to say positively as to whether the Department has accepted the decision in the earlier years.
Decision: Both the Appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Income Tax Appeal No.336 of 2004
with
Income Tax Appeal No.328 of 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax. .. Appellant
v/s.
M/s.Ion Exchange (I) Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Ashok Kontagale for appellant.
None for respondent.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 29th November 2005
P.C. :
1. Mr.Kontangale appearing for the Income Tax
Department in both the above Appeals, in spite of
several adjournments, is not in a position to say
positively as to whether the Department has
accepted the decision in the earlier years. In
that view of the matter, we do not think it
prudent to entertain both these Appeals since the
decision of the Tribunal is based on its earlier
orders.
2. Both the Appeals are dismissed.
(H.L. GOKHALE, 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