Radhaballabh Silk Mills P. Ltd v. The Dy. Commissioner Of
High Court
10 Dec 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Radhaballabh Silk Mills P. Ltd v. The Dy. Commissioner Of
Date of order
10 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Remanded
Case summary
In Radhaballabh Silk Mills P. Ltd v. The Dy. Commissioner Of, the High Court (2008) remanded the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VPH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 245 OF 2006
Radhaballabh Silk Mills P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs
The Dy. Commissioner of ... Respondent
Income-Tax, Circle-4(1), Mumbai
Mr. S. G. Dalal, for the appellant.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the respondent.
CORAM: Dr. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, &
V. C. DAGA, JJ.
DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008.
P.C.:
----
. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent. After
hearing the parties for some time, by the consent of
both the parties, the impugned order dated 16th
January, 2006 passed by the Tribunal is modifed to the
limited extent that instead of remanding back to the
lower Appellate Authority, the matter is remanded back
to the Assessing Officer, so as to enable the
appellant to raise all the contentions before the AO.
In view thereof the impugned order dated 16th January,
2006 is modified, as mentioned above. All contentions
of the appellant are kept expressly open.
- 2 -
2. Both the learned counsel agree that there is
no need to record the reasons, in view of the limited
order that has been passed.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ V.C. DAGA, 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.