Case Law › High Court › Rpa/18/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Rpa/18/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax City--7,Mum v. M/S Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd

High Court 22 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · newos

Parties

Date of order

22 Jul 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Rpa/18/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax City--7,Mum v. M/S Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 2.Accordingly, the present Review Petition is wrongly on board as it is already disposed of.

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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 30 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax,City-7, Mumbai .. Petitioner v/s. M/s. Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. .. Respondent None for the petitioner Mr. B.D. Damodar i/b Kanga & Co. for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J. DATED : 22[nd] JULY, 2016. P.C. 1.None appears for the Revenue in support of the Petition. By order dated 27[th] November, 2015 the Notice of Motion taken out by the Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition was dismissed. 2.Accordingly, the present Review Petition is wrongly on board as it is already disposed of. (A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.