In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central I, Mumbai v. Ajmera Housing Corporation, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised by the Revenue in both these appeals.
Decision: 3.Both the appeals are 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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.816 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.817 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Mumbai
Versus
Ajmera Housing Corporation
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Ms.Vasanti B. Patel for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 18[th] August, 2011.
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised by the Revenue in both these appeals.
2.Counsel for the parties state that on merits the question raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Brahma Associates reported in (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom).
3.Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed 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