Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/586/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/586/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd

High Court 26 Oct 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/586/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd
Date of order
26 Oct 2004
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/586/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Ii, Mumbai v. M/S Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd, 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.586 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Mumbai .. Appellant. V/s. M/s.Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. .. Respondent. Ms.S.V. Bharucha i/b. S.S. Sarkar for the appellant. Ms.Arati Sathe for the respondent. CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 26TH OCTOBER, 2004. CORAM : R.M. LODHA, & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 26TH OCTOBER, 2004. P.C. : Heard. 2. The controversy raised in this appeal is concluded by the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Cadell Weaving Mill Co. P. Ltd. V/s. CIT [249 ITR 265]. However, the learned counsel for the revenue submits that the said judgment is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Even if that be so, in so far as we are concerned, the controversy stands concluded by the division bench judgment of this court and, therefore, it cannot be said that substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 3. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) 2 (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