The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited
High Court
08 Aug 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited
Date of order
08 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3014 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai
Versus
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 8[th] August, 2011.
1.Although three questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal, perusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal shows that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision in the light of the judgments of this Court.
2.Since the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, the assessing officer, while passing fresh order, shall take into consideration the judgments of this Court in the case of Plastibends India Limited V/s. ACIT reported in (2010) 318 ITR 352 (Bom) and the Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Kalpataru Colors and Chemicals reported in 328 ITR 451 (Bom).
3.The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.
(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.