Itxa/373/2008 Of The Commissinr Of Income-Tax-24,Mum v. Mr Jagmohan Gupta
High Court
28 Aug 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/373/2008 Of The Commissinr Of Income-Tax-24,Mum v. Mr Jagmohan Gupta
Date of order
28 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/373/2008 Of The Commissinr Of Income-Tax-24,Mum v. Mr Jagmohan Gupta, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The learned counsel is not in a position to state whether an application for restoration of that appeal has been made or not.
Decision: The appeal is disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.373 OF 2008
The commissioner of Income-tax-24 ..Appellant.
V/s.
Mr.Jagmohan Gupta ..Respondent.
Mr.R. Asokan for the Appellant.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 28TH AUGUST, 2008.
P.C. :
1. The learned counsel for the appellant
states that the order of the tribunal challenged in
this appeal is solely based on the judgment of the
tribunal in the case of Manmohan Gupta. Appeal
challenging that order being Income Tax Appeal (L)
No.953 of 2007 was filed in this Court but that
appeal has been dismissed in default on 23-4-2008.
The learned counsel is not in a position to state
whether an application for restoration of that
appeal has been made or not.
2. In this view of the matter, therefore, in
our opinion as the main appeal itself has been
dismissed, the present appeal cannot be
entertained. Hence, rejected.
3. However, the appellant shall be at
liberty to move for hearing of this appeal, in case
the appeal filed in Manmohan Gupta’s case referred
to above is restored and admitted by this Court.
4. The appeal is disposed of.
D.K. DESHMUKH, 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.