The Cit Mumbai City-9 v. M/S.garden Plast Pvt.ltd
High Court
12 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit Mumbai City-9 v. M/S.garden Plast Pvt.ltd
Date of order
12 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit Mumbai City-9 v. M/S.garden Plast Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In appeal against the order preferred by revenue the learned Tribunal confirmed the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.526 OF 2005
The CIT Mumbai City-9 ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Garden Plast Pvt.Ltd., ..Respondent
----
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.Amit Yadkikar i/by Desai & Diwanji for respondent
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 12.03.2008.
PC
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that provisions
of section 271 (1)(c) are not attracted as it was
clear that there was no concealment of income
detected or the appellant had failed to file
inaccurate particulars of income.
2. In appeal against the order preferred by revenue
the learned Tribunal confirmed the finding recorded
by the Commissioner (Appeals). Considering the two
concurrent findings recorded, the questions of law
as framed would not arise and consequently appeal
dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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