Itxa/395/2004 Of M/S Mahin Ra And Mahindra Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income- Tax,City-Ii,Mumbai
High Court
12 Dec 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/395/2004 Of M/S Mahin Ra And Mahindra Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income- Tax,City-Ii,Mumbai
Date of order
12 Dec 2005
Assessment year(s)
1990-91
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/395/2004 Of M/S Mahin Ra And Mahindra Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income- Tax,City-Ii,Mumbai, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Decision: We allow the appeal at the stage of admission itself.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
-= : 1 : =-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.395 OF 2004
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.395 OF 2004
M/s.Mahaindra & Mahindra Ltd. ..Appellant.
V/s.
Commissioner of Income-tax ..Respondent.
Mr.J.I.Patel i/b.B.V.Jhaveri for appellant.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for respondent.
CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND
CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND
CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2005.
DATED : 12TH DECEMBER, 2005.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. Rule, returnable forthwith.
2. Mr.Ashok Kotangale waives service for the
respondent.
3. Heard finally with the consent of the
parties.
4. The order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal confirming the appeal in Appeal No.3058/1996
for the assessment year 1990-91 is under challenge in
the present appeal. We find from the impugned order
-= : 2 : =-
that in fact no reasons are given for coming to the
conclusion in passing the order under section 163 of
the Income Tax Act making the assessee, an agent of a
non resident and imposing the liability on the
assessee. It is only for this reason, we allow this
appeal concerning the assessment year 1990-91 in Appeal
No.3058/1996 and set aside that order and restore the
appeal to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
to be decided after hearing both the parties and after
giving reasons in support of that order.
5. We allow the appeal at the stage of
admission itself. Rule is made absolute in terms of
the order with no order as to costs.
6. All rival contentions are kept open.
(H.L.GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L.GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.