Itxa/505/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10 Mumbai v. M/S. Tata Telcom Ltd Mumbai
High Court
25 Jun 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/505/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10 Mumbai v. M/S. Tata Telcom Ltd Mumbai
Date of order
25 Jun 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/505/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 10 Mumbai v. M/S. Tata Telcom Ltd Mumbai, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Decision: However, in view of clause (g) of Explanation (2) to Section 115JA, which has been introduced with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 of the Finance No.2 Act, 2009, the matter would have to be considered afresh by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).2.The appeal is therefore, disposed of by s...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.505 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax -10 MumbaiV/s.
M/s.Tata Telecom Ltd. Now Avaya Global Connect Ltd.
....Appellant
....Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.
Mr.Percy Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel with Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2012.
P.C. :-
1.The question of law sought to be raised in this appeal may not have arisen for consideration in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax .versus. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., (2008) 305 ITR 409 (SC). However, in view of clause (g) of Explanation (2) to Section 115JA, which has been introduced with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 of the Finance No.2 Act, 2009, the matter would have to be considered afresh by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).2.The appeal is therefore, disposed of by setting aside the
order of the ITAT dated 09.09.2008 on this issue alone and with a request to the Tribunal to re-consider this ground.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, 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