The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai v. Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai
High Court
28 Mar 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai v. Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
28 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai v. Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.130 OF 2010
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6375 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai
Versus
ICICI Bank Limited, Mumbai
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.S.J. Mehta for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] March, 2011.
1.This Review Petition is filed seeking recall of the order dated 21-07-2009 passed in Income Tax Appeal No.6375 of 2010. By the said order, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond time and this Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. In view of the subsequent order passed by the Apex Court on 3-5-2010 and also in view of the retrospective amendment to Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (by inserting Sub-section 2A to Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961),
2.Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and the Income TAx
Appeal No.6375 of 2010 is restored to the file. No costs.
(Smt.R.S. Dalvi, 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