In Itxa/4252/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -1 Mumbai v. Dream Merchants Enterprises, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: For the reasons stated therein, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4243 OF 2010 ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4252 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Dream Merchants Enterprises
..Respondent.
Mr. D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.
Mr. Tralshawala with V.S. Hadade for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ.
DATED : 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2011
P.C. :-
Counsel for the revenue states that similar question raised by the revenue in the case of CIT V/s. Rajesh Khanna [Income Tax Appeal No.3875 of 2010] has beenrejected by this Court on 14/9/2011. For the reasons stated therein, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. TATED, 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