The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Another
High Court
22 Jan 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Another
Date of order
22 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
1998-99
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Another, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: The present petition relates to assessment year 1998-99.3.For the reasons already indicated while dismissing companion writ petition No.140 of 2010, this petition shall stand dismissed in the same terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.155 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai
Versus
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai & Another
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the petitioner.None for the respondents.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 22[nd] January, 2010.
P.C. :
1.Not on board. Mentioned. On the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue the petition has been taken on board and has been called out since the same question has been raised, as in Writ Petition No.140 of 2010.
2.By an order passed today, this Court had dismissed a petition filed by the revenue in order to challenge an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on an application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, recalling a common order dated 7[th] April 2005 pertaining to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. The present petition relates to assessment year 1998-99.3.For the reasons already indicated while dismissing companion writ petition No.140 of 2010, this petition shall stand dismissed in the same terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
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.
EaseValue