In Itxa/358/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iii,Pune v. Sahyadri 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, all the appeals are 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 BOMBAY
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant.
V/s.
Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd...Respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.224 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant.
V/s.
Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd...Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the respondent. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that so far as the first and second question 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 iii(a) and (b) are concerned, the same is covered by the judgment delivered by this Bench on 30th June, 2009 in the case of The Commissionerof Income Tax V/s. Kisanveer Satara Sakar Karkhana Ltd.in Income Tax Appeal No.930 of 2008.
3.In this view of the matter, all the appeals are 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