In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 7 v. M/S Percept D-Mark Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The ITAT by the impugned order dated 28[th] May, 2008 while setting aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating the assessment year 2001-2002 and restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer directed the Assessing Officer to...
Decision: Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
k
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2069 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 7.. AppellantVs.M/s Percept D-Mark Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr. Jitendra Jam i/b Kanga & Co. for Respondent.
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2011.
P.C.
The ITAT by the impugned order dated 28[th] May, 2008 while setting aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating the assessment year 2001-2002 and restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer directed the Assessing Officer to verify as to whether the said amount has been offered to tax in the Assessment Year 2004-2005. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has verified and has passed an order on 31[st] December, 2009 recording therein the amount in question have been offered to tax in the Assessment Year 2004-2005 and the same has been assessed in the said Assessment Year. In
this view of the matter, the counsel for the Revenue seeks to withdraw the Appeal. Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. Refund of court fees as per rules.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(K.K. TATED, 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.