In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
Decision: Following the aforesaid order, we allow the Review Petition and recall the order dated 3 April 2012 on question (i) as formulated therein.
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
REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2013ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.198 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4versusM/s. Kotak Securities Ltd.
..Petitioner.
..Respondent.
.....
Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the Petitioner.Mr. F.V. Irani with Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Respondent.
.....
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, ANDR.D. DHANUKA, JJ.
12 July 2013.
P.C. :
The Review Petition is directed against an order dated 3 April 2012 of this Bench in Income Tax Appeal 198 of 2012 for Assessment Year 2004-05. The Review Petition is confined to the disposal of question (i). The Court while disposing of the aforesaid question recorded the statement of counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and for the assessee that the question would stand covered by the judgment of this Court in companion Income Tax Appeal 206 of 2012 for Assessment Year 2002-03. In a companion Review Petition (Review Petition (Lodg.) 39 of 2012) this Court has passed an order today recalling the decision on the aforesaid question for Assessment Year 2002-03 in Appeal 206 of 2012. Following the aforesaid order, we allow the Review Petition and recall the order dated 3 April 2012 on question (i) as formulated therein. The Appeal shall now be set down for hearing before the regular Bench.
(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
( R.D. Dhanuka, 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.