Ma 604 Of 2008 v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-I
High Court
19 May 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court Β· patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Ma 604 Of 2008 v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-I
Date of order
19 May 2015
Assessment year(s)
β
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ma 604 Of 2008 v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below β read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order β as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Review No.368 of 2012
IN
MA 604 of 2008
===========================================================
Hindustan Live Stock Agency, a Partnership firm having its registered office at 1/158, Gali Bagichawali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi β 110006 through its Partner Rajeev Malik, son fo Narsing Das Malik, resident of 1/158, Gali Bagichawali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi β 110006
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Patna β 800 001.
.... .... Respondent
with
===========================================================
Civil Review No. 370 of 2012
IN MA 610 of 2008
===========================================================
Hindustan Live Stock Agency, a Partnership firm having its registered office at 1/158, Gali Bagichawali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi β 110006 through its Partner Rajeev Malik, son fo Narsing Das Malik, resident of 1/158, Gali Bagichawali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi β 110006
.... .... Petitioner
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, having its office at Central Revenue Building, Patna β 800 001.
.... .... Respondent
with
=========================================================== Civil Review No. 372 of 2012
IN MA 608 of 2008
===========================================================
Hindustan Live Stock Agency, a Partnership firm having its registered office at 1/158, Gali Bagichawali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi β 110006 through its Partner Rajeev Malik, son fo Narsing Das Malik, resident of 1/158, Gali Bagichawali, Punja Sharif, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi β 110006
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, having its
office at Central Revenue Building, Patna β 800 001.
.... .... Respondent
=========================================================== Appearance :(In C. REV. No. 368 of 2012)For the Petitioner : Mr. D.V.PATHY, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC , I T Deptt. (In C. REV. No. 370 of 2012)For the Petitioner : Mr. D.V.PATHY, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC , I T Deptt (In C. REV. No. 372 of 2012)For the Petitioner : Mr. D.V.PATHY, Advocate Mrs. Manju Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. SC , I T Deptt ===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARIAND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
C.A.V JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
Date: 19.05.2015
These applications have been filed for review of the order dated 30.03.2012 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 604 of 2008 and analogous cases, inter alia, dismissing the appeals.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason as may warrant review of the aforesaid order dated 30.03.2012. These
applications are accordingly dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J.)
I.A. ANSARI, J. : I agree
(I. A. Ansari, J.)
B.T/- U β
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 β not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CAβclient 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.