Itxa/45/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 Mumbai v. Charishma Investments Pvt. L Td
High Court
30 Nov 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/45/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 Mumbai v. Charishma Investments Pvt. L Td
Date of order
30 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/45/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3 Mumbai v. Charishma Investments Pvt. L Td, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
1 itxa45-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.45 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Charishma Investments Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr.J.D. Mistri, senior Advocate with P.C.Tripathi i/b. Raj Darak for respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ.
DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010
P.C. :-
1.Counsel on both sides state that on merits the questions raised in this appeal are covered by the judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1557 of 2007 [CIT V/s. M/s. Castle Investment & Inds. Pvt. Ltd.] decided on 22/07/2008 against the revenue and, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of CIT passed under section 263 of I.T. Act cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(R.M. SAVANT, 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