Case Law › High Court › Itxa/416/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income-...

Itxa/416/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-14,Mum v. Itat And Anr

High Court 22 Nov 2005 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

22 Nov 2005

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/416/2007 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax-14,Mum v. Itat And Anr, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

Section 260A case law →

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL(LOD.) NO.1153 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL(LOD.) NO.1153 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. I.T.A.T. & one ..Respondents. Mr.Parag Vyas for appellant. Mr.Ajay Singh for respondent. CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2005. P.C. :- P.C. :- This appeal is sought to be filed against an order of the Tribunal. Such an appeal is not available under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of the decision of our High Court in the case of Chem Chem Amit V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Amit V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax272 I.T.R. 397. The appeal is, therefore, reported in 272 I.T.R. 397 not maintainable and hence dismissed. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA

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.