The Cit v. M/S.majethia Enterprises
High Court
22 Aug 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. M/S.majethia Enterprises
Date of order
22 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit v. M/S.majethia Enterprises, 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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.770 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.770 OF 2008
The CIT .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Majethia Enterprises .. Respondent
Ms.Anamika Malhotra for the Appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 22nd August, 2008
DATE : 22nd August, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. The learned Counsel for the Appellant fairly states
that the first question of law which is framed in this
Appeal does not arise out of the order of the ITAT. As
far as the second question of law involved in this
Appeal is concerned, the learned Counsel for both the
parties categorically state that the said second
question of law is covered by the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Company
Calcutta Company
Limited V/s.CIT 37 ITR 1,
Limited V/s.CIT 37 ITR 1, against the Revenue and in
Limited V/s.CIT 37 ITR 1,
favour of the Assessee. In view thereof, the second
question of law involved in this Appeal is answered
against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.
Appeal stands disposed of.
(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.