Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central Iii, Mumbai v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited

High Court 17 Jan 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central Iii, Mumbai v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited
Date of order
17 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - Central Iii, Mumbai v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

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.3584 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax - Central III, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Dr.K. Shivram with Mr.Ajay R. Singh for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 17[th] January, 2011. 1.After the matter was argued for some time, counsel on both the sides state that it would be just and proper in the facts of the present case to set aside the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and restore the matter to the file of the Tribunal to decide all the questions raised in the appeal afresh. 2.Accordingly, by consent the order dated 13-01-2009 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for consideration afresh and in accordance with law. All rival contentions of both the parties are kept open. 3.The appeal is disposed off in terms of this order. No costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan