Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/482/2002 Of The Cimmissioner Of Inc...

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.)
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