The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S.shangrila Inv.& Trading Co.pvt.ltd
High Court
02 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S.shangrila Inv.& Trading Co.pvt.ltd
Date of order
02 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 v. M/S.shangrila Inv.& Trading Co.pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.402 OF 2005
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.402 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Shangrila Inv.& Trading Co.Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr.Raj Darak for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
DATE : 2nd April, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. By consent the Appeal is taken up for hearing.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant-revenue and
the learned Counsel for the Respondent-assessee. The
learned Counsel for the Appellant-revenue has pointed
out that on the very same issue (as is involved in this
Appeal), this Court by an order dated 11th June, 2007
passed in the Income Tax Application No.11/1999 has held
that there was no substantial question of law involved
in the case. Hence, for the same reasons as stated in
our order dated 11th June, 2007 passed in the Income Tax
Application No.11/1999, the present Appeal (L)
No.402/2005 also stands dismissed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.