The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai v. Ashutosh A. Kela
High Court
20 Jun 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai v. Ashutosh A. Kela
Date of order
20 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai v. Ashutosh A. Kela, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Issue: Admit on the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT is legally right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue without taking into consideration and deliberating on the merit of the case, that the Revenue has not accepted...
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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.606 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Ashutosh A. Kela..Respondent.
Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, JJ.
DATE : 20[th] June, 2011.
P.C. :
1.None for the respondents, though served. Heard. Admit on the following substantial question of law :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT is legally right in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue without taking into consideration and deliberating on the merit of the case, that the Revenue has not accepted the order of the ITAT against the order u/s. 263 of the Act, and filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court on the issue of depreciation ?”
2.In the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Plastiblends India Limited V/s. ACIT (2009) 318 ITR 352 (Bom) (FB), the
decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is quashed and set aside and
the matter is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.
3.The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
(Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, 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