The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Rpg Enterprises Ltd
High Court
08 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Rpg Enterprises Ltd
Date of order
08 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. Rpg Enterprises Ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2608 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-7..Appellant.Vs.RPG Enterprises Ltd...Respondent.
....
Ms. Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant.
Mr. R. Murlidharan with Mr. Rajesh Shah i/b Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Respondent.
....
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
8[th] January, 2010.
P.C.:
The original assessment order was passed on 17[th] January,
2005. On 27[th] April, 2005 the CIT (A) decided the appeal and remanded the proceedings back to the assessing officer. In pursuance of the order of the CIT (A) the assessment has been completed and a fresh order of assessment has been passed on 20[th] November, 2006 which, counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee states has been accepted by the assessee. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was
justified in coming to the conclusion by its impugned order dated 27[th ]
February, 2009 that the order of remand having been implemented
and an assessment having been made nothing further survives in the proceedings. The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
(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.