Case Law › High Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Ltd., Nagpur

High Court 28 Jan 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · testcase

Parties

Date of order

28 Jan 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur v. Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Ltd., Nagpur, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

itr.555.87 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Income Tax Reference No.555 of 1987 (The Commissioner of Income-tax, Vidarbha, Nagpur vs. Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Ltd., Nagpur) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Office notes, Office Memoranda ofCoram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Ordersor directions and Registrar’s orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for the Applicant.Shri C.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the Non-Applicant. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ANDV.M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2016. The matter is not on board today. However,Advocate Shri Bhattad appearing for revenue and Advocate ShriThakkar appearing for assessee state that tax effect therein is ofRs.16,46,619/- only. At their joint request, it is accordingly taken up on board. In view of this statement and in the light of orderpassed in ITR No.7/1988 and other connected matters, wereturn the reference unanswered. No costs. *sandesh JUDGE JUDGE

Facing a similar income-tax issue?

Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.

✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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.