In Itxa/7000/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -3 Mumbai v. Kanakdhaaara Traders Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.The only question raised in this appeal is whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Decision: 2In this view of the matter, present Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.7000 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Mumbai..... Appellants
V/s.Kanakdhara Traders Pvt. Ltd.,..... Respondents
----
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellants.
Mr.J.D.Mistry Senior Counsel @ Mr.P.C.Tripathi i/by Raj Darak for the respondents.
----
CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR &
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATE :8/2/ 2011
P.C.
1.The only question raised in this appeal is whether the ITAT was
justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Counsel on both sides state that the aforesaid question is answered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT-3, Mumbai Vs.M/s.Nikhil Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.3006 of 2009 decided on 15.3.2010.
2In this view of the matter, present Appeal is dismissed.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,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.
EaseValue