The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.. Shetusha Engineers
High Court
17 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.. Shetusha Engineers
Date of order
17 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
1992-93
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.. Shetusha Engineers, the High Court (2008) 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
M/s.. Shetusha Engineers &
Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. B.M. Chatterji with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for
the Appellant.
Mr.Madhur Agarwal i/by Dhru & Co. for Respondents.
CORAL: F.I.REBELLED&R.S. MODISTE, DJ.DATED: MARCH 17, 2008
CORAL: F.I.
R.S. MODISTE, DJ.
DATED: MARCH 17, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. On behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel
points out that in respect of the same issue,
Revenue has not preferred any appeal for the
assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95. In so far as
Assessment year 1992-93 is concerned, the appeal was
dismissed on the ground of limitation. Apart from
the above, we find that as the matter is pertaining
to retention of money, the issue is covered by the
judgment of this court reported in Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. Associated Cables Pvt. Limited,
(2006) 286 ITR 596 (Bom). Considering the above,
the question of law as framed would not arise.
Consequently appeal dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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.
EaseValue