The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.trent Limited
High Court
17 Jun 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.trent Limited
Date of order
17 Jun 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.trent Limited, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
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.3136 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Trent Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
Mr.Percy J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.C. Tripathi i/by Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 17 June, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the date of the purchase of the units was 26 March 2002, the record date is 28 March 2002 and the date of sale was 14 October 2002. The sale took place after three months from the record date and hence the provisions of Section 94(7), as they then stood were therefore, not applicable. The Tribunal has confirmed the finding of the Commissioner. In the circumstances, the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
2.In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the second question which is raised in the appeal.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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