The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Gem Plus
High Court
03 Sep 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Gem Plus
Date of order
03 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Gem Plus, the High Court (2018) 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.
suresh
31-ITXA-416.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.416 OF 2016
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, PuneVs.Tata Johnson Control Automotive Pvt.Ltd. (Now Johnson Controls AutomotiveLimited)
.... Appellant
.... Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2018
P.C:
1.When this appeal was called out and challenging theJudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Pune,dated 29-4-2015, for Assessment Year 2005-06, it is fairlyconceded that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalunder appeal raises no substantial question of law as the issue issquarely covered by a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in
the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gem Plus
Page 1 of 2
suresh
31-ITXA-416.2016.doc
Jewellery India Ltd., reported in [2010] 194 Taxman 192
(Bombay) = 330 ITR 175 (Bom.).
2.In the circumstances, this appeal raises nosubstantial question of law. It is dismissed.
(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Digitally signedSureshby SureshJagdishJagdishSajnawatDate:Sajnawat2018.09.0513:30:48 +0530
Page 2 of 2
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