Mahalakshmi Infraproject Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kolhapur
High Court
30 Aug 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mahalakshmi Infraproject Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kolhapur
Date of order
30 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mahalakshmi Infraproject Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kolhapur, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
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.4610 OF 2010
Mahalakshmi Infraproject Limited
..Appellant.
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Kolhapur..Respondent.
Mr.S.N. Inamdar with Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the appellant.Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 30[th] August, 2011.
1.This appeal is filed by the appellant – assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24[th] February 2010 in ITA No.433/PN/2007 relating to the assessment year 2003-04.
2.Perusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal shows
that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed the order in favour of the Revenue by relying upon its decision in the case of B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum Const. (P) Limited V/s. ACIT reported in 126 TTJ 577.
3.It is not in dispute that the said decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of B.T. Patil & Sons (Supra) has been recalled
by the Tribunal by order dated 18[th] February 2011, as is evident from the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.766/PN/09 dated 8[th] June 2011.
4.In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 24[th] February 2010 passed in ITA No.433/PN/2007 relating to AY 2003-04 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
5.The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, 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.