Mumbai City Ix v. M/S Patel Roadways Ltd
High Court
04 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City Ix v. M/S Patel Roadways Ltd
Date of order
04 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai City Ix v. M/S Patel Roadways Ltd, the High Court (2008) 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.879 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income TaxMumbai City IX.... AppellantVs.M/s Patel Roadways Ltd...Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for AppellantMr.P.R.Toprani for Respondent
P.C.
CORAM : Dr.S.Radhakrishnan andA.V.Nirgude, JJDATE : 4th July, 2008
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant andlearned counsel for the respondent.
2. The substantial questions of law sought to beraised reads as under :
(a) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theHon’ble Tribunal is right in holding thatthe claims payable by the assessee is astatutory liability as against theassessing officer treating the same as acontingent liability ?
3. A perusal of the tribunal’s order clearlyindicates that the tribunal has followed thejudgment of Kerala High Court in CIT vs.KeralaTransport Co.239 ITR 183 (Ker) The said judgmentwas challenged by the revenue before the Supreme
Court which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.In view thereof, there is no substantial questionof law involved in the above appeal. Appealstands dismissed.
{ A.V.Nirgude, J }
{ A.V.Nirgude, J }
{ A.V.Nirgude, J }
{ Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J }
{ Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J }
{ Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, 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.