Tata Infotech Ltd v. Dy.cit
High Court
07 Aug 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Tata Infotech Ltd v. Dy.cit
Date of order
07 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Tata Infotech Ltd v. Dy.cit, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal stands disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.699 OF 2003
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.699 OF 2003
Tata Infotech Ltd. .. Appellant
Vs.
Dy.CIT .. Respondent
Mr.S.G.Dalal i/by Mr.S.R.Mody for the Appellant.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 7th August, 2008
DATE : 7th August, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The
learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the
Question No.2, which is the only question, on which this
Appeal has already been admitted on 22.11.2004, is
covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Britannia Industries Limited V/s. CIT -
Britannia Industries Limited V/s. CIT -
(2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC)
(2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC) against the Assessee and in
(2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC)
favour of the Revenue. In view thereof, the said
question is answered in favour of the Revenue and
against the Assessee. Appeal stands disposed of.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, 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.