The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai v. M/S.euresian
High Court
01 Jul 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai v. M/S.euresian
Date of order
01 Jul 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai v. M/S.euresian, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Decision: In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of, on the request of Counsel for the Revenue and the assessee, by directing the Assessing Officer to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law and, while passing fresh orders to have due regard to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalpat...
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.2632 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Euresian..Respondent.
Ms.Anamika Malhotra for the appellant.Mr.Rita K. Joshi with Mr.Ashok D. Shetty with Mr.R.V. Shetty for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 1 July, 2010.
P.C. :
1.By its impugned order the Tribunal has restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment in the case of Topman Export V. ITO (ITA 5769/Mum/2006 dated 11 August 2009). By the judgment delivered on 29 June 2010 in the Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals [ITA (L) No.2887 of 2009], the view of the Tribunal in the case of Topman has been disapproved. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of, on the request of Counsel for
the Revenue and the assessee, by directing the Assessing Officer to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law and, while passing fresh orders to
have due regard to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalpataru
Colours and Chemicals (supra)
2.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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