The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai v. M/S.sukhdham Appar & Associates
High Court
28 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai v. M/S.sukhdham Appar & Associates
Date of order
28 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai v. M/S.sukhdham Appar & Associates, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5778 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 12, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Sukhdham Appar & Associates..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.B.G. Yewale i/by Rajesh Shah & Co. for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] September 2011
1.Counsel for the parties state that similar questions raised by the
Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax V/s. Shri Jayraj
Kapadia, Income Tax Appeal No.5487 of 2010, has been rejected by this Court on 15[th] July 2011.
2.For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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