The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19, Mumbai v. Ayaz Khyrshid Ahmed Siddique
High Court
18 Apr 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19, Mumbai v. Ayaz Khyrshid Ahmed Siddique
Date of order
18 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
2004-2005
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19, Mumbai v. Ayaz Khyrshid Ahmed Siddique, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
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.1837 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 19, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Ayaz Khyrshid Ahmed Siddique..Respondent.
Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 18[th] April, 2011.
1.This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24-02-2010 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.3874/Mum/2008 relating to assessment year 2004-2005. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsidering the issues in the light of the Special Bench decision in the case of Topman Exports reported in 318 ITR 87 (AT).
The Special Bench decision in the case of Topman Exports
(supra) has been over-ruled by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals reported in 328 ITR 451.
3.Since the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of the Tribunal shall take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals (supra).
4.The appeal is accordingly disposed off. No costs.
(A.A. Sayed, 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.