Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/843/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/843/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv Pune v. Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd

High Court 25 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/843/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv Pune v. Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
Date of order
25 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/843/2007 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Iv Pune v. Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 3.In view of the above, we are not inclined toentertain the above Appeal and the same is dismissed. : 2 : [A.V.

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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.843 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 5,.Pune...AppellantV/s.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,.Solapur...RespondentMr.Vimal Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant..Ms.Aasifa Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN &A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ.DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. :.Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellantand the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2.Mr.Gupta, the learned Counsel for theAppellant, states that the question of law involved inthe above Appeal is squarely covered against theRevenue and in favour of the assessee by the judgmentof this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-TaxV/s. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.[(2008) 301 ITR 191 (Bom)]. 3.In view of the above, we are not inclined toentertain the above Appeal and the same is dismissed. : 2 : [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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