Case Law › High Court › Ruit/5/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Ruit/5/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji-Goa v. Salgaonkar Mining Industries Ltd.,Margao-Goa

High Court 12 Jan 2004 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · hcbgoa

Parties

Date of order

12 Jan 2004

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Ruit/5/2003 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji-Goa v. Salgaonkar Mining Industries Ltd.,Margao-Goa, the High Court (2004) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

(Spl.-H.C.A.S.,C.D.,78-e) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOAAPPELLATE SIDE REFERENCE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT NO.5 OF 2003. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Note, Office Memoranda of Quorum, appearances, Court’sCourt’s or Judge’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.R. Rivonkar and Ms. A. Fadte,Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. P. Kaka with Mr. D. Pangam,Advocates for the Respondents. CORAM : N.N. MHATRE &P.V. HARDAS, JJ.DATE: 12TH JANUARY, 2004. P.C.: In view of the statement madeby Mr. Rivonkar, after takinginstructions, that the question ofunabsorbed business losses does notarise in the facts and circumstancesof this case. The other twoquestions therefore need not beanswered. The Reference is returnedunanswered. NISHITA MHATRE, J. sl.

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax 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.