Case LawHigh Court › Mrs. S v. J.v.salunke,Pa

Mrs. S v. J.v.salunke,Pa

High Court 19 Nov 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mrs. S v. J.v.salunke,Pa
Date of order
19 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mrs. S v. J.v.salunke,Pa, the High Court (2014) allowed the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax – 6}AppellantversusM/s. Enhira Software Services}P. Ltd.}Respondent Mrs. S. V. Bharucha for the Appellant. Mr. K. Gopal with Mr. Jitendra Singh and Ms. Neha Paranjpe for the Respondent. CORAM :-S.C.DHARMADHIKARI &A.A.SAYED, JJ.DATED :-NOVEMBER 19, 2014 P.C. :- This Appeal challenges the order passed by the Tribunal on 10[th] February, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No. 2741 of 2011. The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, for the assessment year 2007-08, allowed the Assessee's Appeal and held that the ingredients of section 2(22)(e) are not satisfied in this case. The income does not fall in this category and as deemed dividend. The issue is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Universal Medicare Pvt.Ltd. reported in 324 ITR 264 and further in Income Tax Appeal No. 114 of 2012 and connected matters, decided by a Division Bench of this Court, to which, one of us, (S.C.Dharmadhikari) was a party, on 4[th] July, 2014. The Appeal is therefore not raising any substantial question of law. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, 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