Itxa/486/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 v. M/S. Angel Broking Ltd
High Court
09 Jul 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/486/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 v. M/S. Angel Broking Ltd
Date of order
09 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/486/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4 v. M/S. Angel Broking Ltd, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.
Decision: For identical reasons and with similar directions we allow this Appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
kps
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.486 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax.-Versus-M/s Angel Broking Limited.
..Appellant
..Respondent
...........
Mr.A.R.Malhotra with Mr.N.A.Kazi, for the Appellant.Mr.Sameer G. Dala, for the Respondent.
...........
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
AND
B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE :- 09[th] July, 2014
P.C.:
1The Income Tax Appeal No.57/2011 decided on 28.04.2014 by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was party and the present Appeal pertaining to the same Assessee, but for the Assessment Year 2007-2008, are identical in terms. The learned counsel agree that same order should apply in relation to this Appeal as well. We, therefore, dispose of this Appeal in terms of our order dated 28.04.2014 in Income Tax Appeal No.57/2011. The questions of law which are termed as substantial and formulated in the order in the companion Appeal are identical to the present one. For identical reasons and with similar directions we allow this Appeal. No order as to costs.
(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, 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.