In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai v. Chandrakant K. Parikh, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed 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.6787 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21, Mumbai
Versus
Chandrakant K. Parikh
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.Mr.B.V. Jhaveri for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &A.R. Joshi, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE :
9[th] November 2011
1.Learned counsel for the parties state that the questions of law raised in this appeal are covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Gopal Purohit reported in (2011) 336 ITR 287 (Bom).
2.For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
(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