Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/543/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/543/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. M/S. Essar World Trade Ltd. Mumbai

High Court 14 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/543/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. M/S. Essar World Trade Ltd. Mumbai
Date of order
14 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/543/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -5 Mumbai v. M/S. Essar World Trade Ltd. Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limini 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.543 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Essar World Trade Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, senior counsel with A.K. Jasani for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. :- 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. So far as the first question is concerned, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. Nowhere there is a discussion about the alleged user of the aircraft by the other group of companies, as sought to be canvassed through this question. 2.So far as the question No.2 is concerned, it is misconceived as it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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