Itxa/893/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11 Mumbai v. Dr. Amins Pathology Laboratory
High Court
06 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/893/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11 Mumbai v. Dr. Amins Pathology Laboratory
Date of order
06 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/893/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11 Mumbai v. Dr. Amins Pathology Laboratory, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.893 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
Dr. Amin's Pathology Laboratory
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr. R.A. Shah i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue as well as the respondent. The question sought to be raised in this appeal revolves around the reopening of assessment after the expiry of 4 years. After perusal of evidence, it seems that the Tribunal has recorded the findings on fact based on appreciation of evidence available on record. There was no failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing the true and material facts. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, 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.