In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-V Pune v. Heard The Learned Counsel For The Parties, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [J P DEVADHAR, J]
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
lgc
1 ITXAL NO. 901/06.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.901 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax-V Pune: AppellantversusJaya Hind Sciaky Ltd.: Respondent
: Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the AppellantMr. S N Inamdar for the Respondent
CORAM :J P DEVADHAR AND R M SAVANT, JJ.DATED :16[th] NOVEMBER 2010
P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2Both the learned counsel for both the sides fairly state that the questions raised in this Appeal are covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner
-of IncomeTax, Coimbatore v/s. Lakshmi Machine Works reported in (2007) 160
Taxman 404 (SC) against the Revenue. In view of this matter, the learned counsel for the Revenue seeks liberty to withdraw this Appeal. Liberty is granted. Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. Refund of court fee if any as per Rules. The Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
[R.M.SAVANT, 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.