Itxa/5093/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 Mumbai v. Mapra Laboratories Ltd
High Court
16 Dec 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/5093/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 Mumbai v. Mapra Laboratories Ltd
Date of order
16 Dec 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/5093/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 Mumbai v. Mapra Laboratories Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.With the above clarification, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO. 2767 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax-6.
... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Mapra Laboratories Ltd.... Respondent.
Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.
J.D.Mistry with Ms.Asifa Khan for the respondent.
P.C.:
CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 16[th] December 2009.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused appeal.
2.It is brought to our notice that so far s first question is concerned, part thereof revolves around the question relating to the interest on certain bank deposits, which the Tribunal has restored to the file of the assessing officer with direction to consider the same in the light of its own judgment in the case of assessee itself.
3.So far as second question is concerned, it relates to the charging of interest under section 234D of
the Income Tax Act; wherein a small amount of Rs.18,281/- is involved. Even that issue has also been restored by the Tribunal to the file of the assessing officer. Under these circumstances, we do not propose to entertain this appeal at this stage. However, questions sought to be raised are kept open for being agitated at the appropriate stage after decision of the assessing officer. All rival contentions are kept open.
4.With the above clarification, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(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.
EaseValue