M/S. Chowgule Brothers Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
High Court
06 Apr 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcbgoa
Parties
M/S. Chowgule Brothers Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle
Date of order
06 Apr 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S. Chowgule Brothers Pvt. Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 29 OF 2016INTAX APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2016
M/S. CHOWGULE BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,
VersusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, MARGAO AND ANR.,
... Applicant
... Respondents
Shri Purushottam R. Karpe, Advocate for the applicant.Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Advocate for the respondents.
-Coram:F. M. REIS &
NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ.-Date:6th April, 2017
P.C.
Heard.
2. This is an application for modification/review of thejudgment passed by this Court dated 1st August, 2016, wherebythe matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer in respect ofthe financial year 2000-01 and 2001-02 in terms thereof. Duringthe course of hearing of the above application, the learnedcounsel appearing for the applicant states that to avoidmultiplicity of views with regard to the subject assessment years,it would be appropriate to remand the matter to C.I.T. (Appeals) in respect of both the assessment years for appropriate disposedoff. Ms.Razaq, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, oninstructions, also states that it would be appropriate that both thematters be decided by CIT (Appeals).
3. In view of the above, by consent the judgment dated 1stAugust, 2016 stands modified and the matter is remanded to theC.I.T. (Appeals) instead of Assessing Officer, as referred toherein above to decide the appeals filed by the appellant afresh,in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are leftopen. All other directions in the judgment shall be in operation.
NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.
mukund
F. M. REIS, 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.