The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 v. M/S.mayur Manufactur Co
High Court
29 Jun 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 v. M/S.mayur Manufactur Co
Date of order
29 Jun 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-18 v. M/S.mayur Manufactur Co, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.762 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-18 Vs.
..Appellant.
M/s.Mayur Manufactur Co...Respondent.
....
Mr. D.K.Kamwal for the Appellant.Mr.B.V. Jhaveri with Ms. Preeti Shukla for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
P.C. :
29 June 2010.
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 ofTopman Exports v. ITO(ITA 5769/Mum/2006 dated 11 August 2009). By the judgment delivered
today in the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours
and Chemicals (ITA(L) 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 learned 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).
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, 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.