The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9 v. M/S.lokhandwala Construction Ind
High Court
24 Oct 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9 v. M/S.lokhandwala Construction Ind
Date of order
24 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9 v. M/S.lokhandwala Construction Ind, the High Court (2007) 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
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.60 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income-tax-9 .. Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Lokhandwala Construction Ind.
Private Limited .. Respondent.
Mr.S.M. Shah with Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the
Appellant.
Dr.K. Shivram with Mr.A.R. Singh and Mr.S.S.
Shetty for the respondent.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 24TH OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C. :
1. So far as question A as framed is concerned,
in the assessee’s own case reported in 260 I.T.R.
579, this Court has held in favour of the assessee.
In appeal preferred by the revenue to the Supreme
Court, no special leave was granted.
2. So far as question C as framed is concerned,
the said issue is covered by the order of this court
in the assessee’s own case in Income Tax Appeal
No.717 of 2002 and other companion appeals dated
24th October, 2005 (CIT V/s M/s.Lokhandwala Const.
Ind. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai).
3. Considering that questions A and C are
2
covered in the assessee’s own case by judgments of
this Court, said questions would not arise.
4. So far as question B is concerned, revenue
does not press the same.
5. In the light of that, appeal disposed of
with no order as to costs.
(F.I. REBELLO, 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.