Mr. M.k. Kulkarni I/B Sagar v. J.p.devadhar,Jj. 29Th June, 2009
High Court
29 Jun 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mr. M.k. Kulkarni I/B Sagar v. J.p.devadhar,Jj. 29Th June, 2009
Date of order
29 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mr. M.k. Kulkarni I/B Sagar v. J.p.devadhar,Jj. 29Th June, 2009, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated therein, the appeal stands dismissed in limini for want of substantial question of law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
srk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 896 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant Vs.Bandhkam Khate Sevakanchi Sahakari Pat Sanstha ..Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr. M.K. Kulkarni i/b Sagar V. Kasar for respondent.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 29th June, 2009
DATE :
P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
During the course of hearing, we were taken to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bandhkam Khate Sevakanchi Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit in Income Tax Appeal No. 156 of 2009, decided on 18[th] March, 2009 i.e.in respect of the Assessee itself. Since the order in appeal is identical and the substantial question of law is involved. In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated therein, the appeal stands dismissed in limini for want of substantial question of law. 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.