The Cit v. M/S.csango
High Court
05 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. M/S.csango
Date of order
05 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit v. M/S.csango, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, Appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1027 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1027 OF 2008
The CIT .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Csango .. Respondent
Mr.R.A.Vaishampayan for the Appellant.
Mr.K.Gopal with Mr.Jitendra Singh for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 5th September, 2008
DATE : 5th September, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused
the Tribunal’s order dated 31st October, 2007. In the
present Appeal, the Appellant has raised the following
questions of law:-
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Tribunal is right in passing a totally different order after recalling its earlier order, and reversing its findings when there is no
change of circumstances?
(b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Tribunal has powers to reverse
its earlier findings upon rehearing the matter after
recalling its earlier order, which amounts to review
and when such powers have not been specifically
conferred by the Statute upon the Tribunal?
(c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting
aside the estimation of the Gross Profit made by the
Assessing Officer?
2. As far as aforesaid Questions (a) & (b) are
concerned, the same have no substance, since the
impugned order was passed after the Misc.Application was
filed, and thereafter earlier order was recalled and a
fresh order was passed. Hence, the aforesaid Questions
(a) & (b) do not survive.
( 2 )
3. So far as Question (c) is concerned it is clear from
the Tribunal’s order, especially Paragraph No.23 of the
said order, that the said issue has been decided in
favour of the Assessee in view of the judgment of the
Metro Shoes Limited. Over and
Tribunal in the case of Metro Shoes Limited.
above, the afroesaid Question (c) is also squarely
covered by the judgment of this Court dated 3rd March,
2008 passed in ITXA No.367 of 2002 and other connected
CIT V/s.Metro Shoes Limited, in
Appeals in the case of CIT V/s.Metro Shoes Limited, in
favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
4. In view of the above, there is no substance in this
Appeal. Hence, Appeal stands dismissed.
(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.