Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S.sanghvi Woods Pvt.ltd

High Court 05 Oct 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S.sanghvi Woods Pvt.ltd
Date of order
05 Oct 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S.sanghvi Woods Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3060 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2 .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Sanghvi Woods Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant Mr.S.E.Dastur, Sr.Advocate, Mr.P.J.Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Madhur Agarwal and Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 5TH OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The counsel for the parties state that the first and third questions raised in this appeal are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this court in the case of CIT vs. Kirti Stationers Pvt.Ltd.in Tax Appeal No.4925 of 2010 decided on 26.9.2011 and CIT vs. Hardik Paints Pvt.Ltd. in Tax Appeal No.2727 of 2009 decided on 21.2.2011 and CIT vs. Kirti Stationers Pvt.Ltd. in Tax Appeal (L) No.1898 of 2009 decided on 26.9.2011. Hence, questions (a) and (c) cannot be entertained. 2. As regards, question (b) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the said question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, question (b) cannot be entertained. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. (K.K. TATED, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan