Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5 Mumbai...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5 Mumbai v. M/S.speciality Formulation (P) Ltd

High Court 14 Jan 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5 Mumbai v. M/S.speciality Formulation (P) Ltd
Date of order
14 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5 Mumbai v. M/S.speciality Formulation (P) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2099 OF 2006 ININCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.1075 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2099 OF 2006 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.1075 OF 2006 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2100 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2100 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2100 OF 2006 IN IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.1076 OF 2006 INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.1076 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income-tax-5 Mumbai..Appellant Versus M/s.Speciality Formulation (P) Ltd., ..Respondents ---- Mr.Ravindra G.Bhat for the appellant. Mr.Jitendra Jain i/by RMG Law Associates for respondents ---- Coram : F.I.REBELLO & Coram : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE,JJ R.S.MOHITE,JJ Date : 14.01.2008. PC 1. As the tax incidence is less than Rs.4 lakhs, learned Counsel seeks leave to withdraw the Notice of Motion and the appeal. The Notice of Motion and Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Question of law, if any, is left open for consideration in an appropriate case. Refund of court fees as per rules. Certified copy expedited. (R.S.MOHITE,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J) (R.S.MOHITE,J) (F.I.REBELLO,J)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan