Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/4694/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/4694/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. Ratnam Gems Impex Pvt Ltd

High Court 26 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/4694/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. Ratnam Gems Impex Pvt Ltd
Date of order
26 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/4694/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. Ratnam Gems Impex Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.2026 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Ratnam Gems Impex Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. At the instance of learned counsel for the revenue, appeal is taken up for admission. 2.Learned counsel for the revenue states that the Tribunal has decided the appeal in terms of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s. India Cement Ltd. reported in [1975] 98 ITR 69. Learned counsel was not able to distinguish the said judgment. We concur with the view taken by the Madras High Court. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan