The Commissioner Of Income Tax -20,Mumbai v. M/S. Tancom Electronics
High Court
04 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax -20,Mumbai v. M/S. Tancom Electronics
Date of order
04 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax -20,Mumbai v. M/S. Tancom Electronics, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C.: Leave to amend to reframe the question of law as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in upholding the findings of the Ld.
Decision: In view of the aforesaid statement, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed.
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 NO.2281 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax -20,Mumbai
Vs.
M/s. Tancom Electronics
....
Smt. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.Mr. Parag Vyas for the Respondent.
....
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
CORAM:DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
4th January, 2010.
P.C.:
Leave to amend to reframe the question of law as follows :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in upholding the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), in cancelling the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act?"
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has fairly
stated that the question of law as framed herein above is covered
against the Revenue by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Foramer France (264 ITR 566). In
view of the aforesaid statement, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed.
(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.
EaseValue