In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai v. M/S.vidyut Metallics Private Limited, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.In view of the statement coming from the revenue, the appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1934 OF 2009ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2345 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 2, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Vidyut Metallics Private Limited
..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.Mr.B.V. Jhaveri with Ms.Preeti Shukla for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 6TH OCTOBER 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. He fairly states that the issue sought to be raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B Desraj V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2008] 301 ITR 439 (SC).
2.In view of the statement coming from the revenue, the appeal is dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
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