In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Ii, Pune v. Agarwal Constructions, Pune, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 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.962 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.963 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, Pune
Versus
Agarwal Constructions, Pune
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar i/by Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Deepak Trashawala with Mr.V.S. Hadade for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 13th September 2011
1.These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order dated 23[rd] March 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
2.Perusal of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal shows that in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Brahma Associates reported in 333 ITR 289 has restored the issue to the file of the assessing officer for fresh decision in accordance with law.
3.Since the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the assessing officer, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals. 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.