The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. Heard Learned Counsel For The Parties
High Court
16 Jun 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. Heard Learned Counsel For The Parties
Date of order
16 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. Heard Learned Counsel For The Parties, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals are therefore 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 (L) NO.431 OF 2008
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.432 OF 2008
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.433 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Smt.Chetna Anil Shah
..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan i/by Mr.K.R. Chaudhari for the appellant.Mr.K. Gopal with Mr.Jitendra Jain for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 16[th] JUNE, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.Both parties agree that the issue sought to be raised in the present Appeal is covered by the order of this Court passed in group appeals, lead Appeal being Income Tax Appeal (L) No.674 of 2008 on 22-10-2008 in the case of C.I.T. V/s. Anil Liladhar Shah. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. The appeals are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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