In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8(3), Mumbai v. M/S.shah Construction Co. Limited, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.Both the appeals are thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3467 OF 2008ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3469 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8(3), Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Shah Construction Co. Limited, Mumbai
..Respondents.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.Mr.M. Subramaniam i/by Mr.V.S. Hadade for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.
2.Both parties agree that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. Gold Coin Health FoodPrivate Limitedreported in 304 ITR 308 (S.C.). Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to rehear the appeal and decide the same in the light of the Apex Court judgment.
3.Both the appeals are thus disposed of with 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