Start Of Picture Text -----<Br> v. Commissioner Of<Br>----- End Of Picture Text -----<Br>
High Court
18 Aug 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Start Of Picture Text -----<Br> v. Commissioner Of<Br>----- End Of Picture Text -----<Br>
Date of order
18 Aug 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Start Of Picture Text -----<Br> v. Commissioner Of<Br>----- End Of Picture Text -----<Br>, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2002
The Commissioner of Income Tax,City-20, Mumbai.v/s.Smt.Zohra Kabul
.. Appellant
.. Respondent
Mr.Vijay Kantharia i/by Mr.H.D.Rathod forappellant.
Mr.P.J.Ramchandani for respondent.
CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED:18thAugust, 2004P.C.In so far as we are concerned, the controversyraised in this appeal stands concluded by theDivision Bench judgment of this court in the case ofCadell Weaving Mill Co.P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income-Tax, 249 ITR 265.
2. No substantial question of law arises. Appealis dismissed.
(R.M.LODHA,J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.
EaseValue