The Cit-8 Mumbai v. M/S.armour Boi-Tech Pvt.ltd
High Court
17 Nov 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-8 Mumbai v. M/S.armour Boi-Tech Pvt.ltd
Date of order
17 Nov 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-8 Mumbai v. M/S.armour Boi-Tech Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
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.167 OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.167 OF 2006
The CIT-8 Mumbai .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Armour Boi-Tech Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 17th November, 2008
DATE : 17th November, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. None
appears for the Respondent though served. Perused the
order of the ITAT dated 28.6.2005. Specially for the
reasons stated in paragraph Nos.3 & 4 of the said order
the Tribunal has given a clear finding that the factual
basis of deleting the disallowance has not been
effectively controverted by the Revenue. In view of the
aforesaid finding of fact, we do not find any
substantial question of law involved in this Appeal.
Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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.