Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai City-3 v. M/S.innova Tradecom P.l...

Mumbai City-3 v. M/S.innova Tradecom P.ltd

High Court 12 Dec 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City-3 v. M/S.innova Tradecom P.ltd
Date of order
12 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mumbai City-3 v. M/S.innova Tradecom P.ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2729 OF 2007 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1474 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income TaX )..Appellant Mumbai City-3 Versus M/s.Innova Tradecom P.Ltd., )..Respondents ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.J.D.Mistry with Raj Darak for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 12.12.2007. PC 1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1474 OF 2007 1. The revenue has preferred this appeal on questions of law as framed in paragraph-7 of the appeal memo. Question (A) is covered by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Taxv. Lazor Syntex Limited in Income Tax Application v. Lazor Syntex Limited No.11 of 1999 decided on 11.6.2007. : 2 : 2. Question (B) is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Miss.Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT, Bombay reported in 63 ITR 651. Kapadia v. CIT, Bombay 3. Question (C) is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT v.J.K.Investors (Bombay)Ltd., reported in in 248 ITR 723. 4. Considering the questions as covered, no substantial question has arised. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 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