Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10, Mum...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10, Mumbai v. Dplm Software Solutions Limited

High Court 12 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10, Mumbai v. Dplm Software Solutions Limited
Date of order
12 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10, Mumbai v. Dplm Software Solutions Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.

Decision: 4.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1053 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 10, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus 3DPLM Software Solutions Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 12[th] July, 2011. 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal. 2.Perusal of the order of the Tribunal, particularly para-8 thereof shows that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has quashed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax because the order of Commissioner of Income Tax did not disclose the basis on which he has come to the conclusion that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Merely directing the Assessing Officer to consider as to whether the conditions of Section 10A have been fulfilled or not cannot be a ground to invoke jurisdiction under Section 163 of the Act. Moreover, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind and there was no lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer in considering whether the conditions of Section 10A have been fulfilled or not. 3.In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Act. 4.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. Sayed, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan