In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai v. M/S.neelam Mercantile P. Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. : DATE : 22[nd] September 2011 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the assessing officer on giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this...
Decision: The appeal is accordingly 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.4909 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Mumbai
Versus
M/s.Neelam Mercantile P. Limited
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Ms.Anamika Malhotra for the appellant.Mr.J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.C. Tripathi & Mr.Raj Darak for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 22[nd] September 2011
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the assessing officer on giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its order has recorded a finding that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Act has been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is brought to our notice that the appeal filed by the Revenue
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order
of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Act has also been dismissed.
3.In these circumstances, the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal in setting aside the assessment order passed in implementation of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, 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.