Itxa/482/2002 Of The Cimmissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay,City- 13 v. Sam N. Motiwala
High Court
23 Aug 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/482/2002 Of The Cimmissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay,City- 13 v. Sam N. Motiwala
Date of order
23 Aug 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/482/2002 Of The Cimmissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay,City- 13 v. Sam N. Motiwala, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.482 OF 2002
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
City-13, Mumbai .. Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Sam N. Motiwala .. Respondent.
Mr.R. Asokan i/b. H.D. Rathod for the appellant.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 23RD AUGUST, 2004.
P.C. :
Heard.
2. The learned counsel for the revenue fairly
conceded that in Cadell Weaving Mill Co. Ltd. V/s.
C.I.T. [249 ITR 265], the question of law that is
proposed by the revenue in this appeal is decided
against the revenue. However, he submits that the
judgment of this Court in the case of Cadell Weaving
Mills Co. ltd. (supra) is under challenge before
the Supreme Court.
3. Insofar as we are concerned, the
2
controversy stands concluded by the Division Bench
judgment of this court in the case of Cadell Weaving
Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, the appeal
does not deserve to be admitted.
4. The appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(R.M. LODHA, J.)
(R.M. LODHA, 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.