The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 22, Navi Mumbai v. M/S.warkem
High Court
08 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 22, Navi Mumbai v. M/S.warkem
Date of order
08 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 22, Navi Mumbai v. M/S.warkem, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 (L) NO.3431 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 22, Navi Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Warkem
..Respondent.
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the appellant.Mr.V.S. Hadade for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the learned counsel for the assessee. Office objections, if any are over-ruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. Taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties.
2.The learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the issue sought to be raised in this appeal is covered by the order of this Court in the case of assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal No.1384 of 2008 delivered on 30[th] March 2009. Photocopy of the order dated 30[th] March 2009 referred to above is retained on record.
3.In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(V.C. Daga, 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.