Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/714/2004 Of Vishwasrao Nail Sahakar...

Itxa/714/2004 Of Vishwasrao Nail Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Spl. Range-3 Solapur

High Court 22 Feb 2006 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/714/2004 Of Vishwasrao Nail Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Spl. Range-3 Solapur
Date of order
22 Feb 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/714/2004 Of Vishwasrao Nail Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Spl. Range-3 Solapur, the High Court (2006) decided the matter.

Decision: Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the I.T.A.T., Pune dated 12/10/2003 and remand back the same to I.T.A.T. to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar...

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 ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.714 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.714 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.714 OF 2004 Vishwasrao Naik Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Appellant. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent. Mr.P.G.Chavan with S.S.Patwardhan for appellant. Mr.Prashant Uchil for respondent. CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2006. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2006. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karkhana Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur & Ors. Kolhapur & Ors. reported in 270 I.T.R.1 has partially overruled the Judgment and order of our High Court in (2000) 245 I.T.R. 498. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the I.T.A.T., Pune dated 12/10/2003 and remand back the same to I.T.A.T. to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karhana Ltd. Karhana Ltd. (supra). 2. Hence appeal stands disposed off in the above terms with no order as to costs. (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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