Itxa/6633/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Mumbai v. Red Rose Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd
High Court
19 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/6633/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Mumbai v. Red Rose Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
19 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/6633/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Mumbai v. Red Rose Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: DATED : 19TH JULY, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in cancelling the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of I.T.
Decision: Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6633 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
Red Rose Textiles Industries Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 19TH JULY, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in cancelling the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of I.T. Act, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The finding of fact recorded by the ITAT is that the assessment order was passed based on a binding decision of the ITAT
which was in favour of the assessee. In such a case, the ITAT held that the assessment order could not be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction
under Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the ITAT cancelled the order of CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act.
3.In our opinion, no fault can be found with the aforesaid decision of the ITAT. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
(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.