The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur v. Shri Sudhakar Balaji Asegaonkar
High Court
28 Oct 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur v. Shri Sudhakar Balaji Asegaonkar
Date of order
28 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur v. Shri Sudhakar Balaji Asegaonkar, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Madhukar K.Inamdar HUFreported in(2009) 318 ITR 149 (Bom.), the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2004
(The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur ..vs.. Shri Sudhakar Balaji Asegaonkar)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant,None for the respondent.
CORAM:- J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.DATED :- 28th OCTOBER, 2010
Learned Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT .vs. Madhukar K.Inamdar HUFreported in(2009) 318 ITR 149 (Bom.), the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
pma
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