The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central – 1, Mumbai v. M/S.virdev Intermediates Private Limited
High Court
28 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central – 1, Mumbai v. M/S.virdev Intermediates Private Limited
Date of order
28 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central – 1, Mumbai v. M/S.virdev Intermediates Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5005 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central – 1, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Virdev Intermediates Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
P.C. :
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ. DATE : 28[th] September 2011
1.Three questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal. In so far as first two questions are concerned, counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the said questions stand answered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax V/s. Acrow India Limited reported in (2008) 298 ITR 447 (Bom). Accordingly, first two questions cannot be entertained in this appeal.
2.As regards third question is concerned, counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the said question stands answered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Otis Elevators Limited V/s.
Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 195 ITR 682. Accordingly, third question cannot be entertained in this appeal.
3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, 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.
EaseValue