The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.abhijit Trading Co. Pvt.ltd
High Court
26 Feb 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.abhijit Trading Co. Pvt.ltd
Date of order
26 Feb 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.abhijit Trading Co. Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In the light of that, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the matter on merits.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.93 of 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Abhijit Trading Co. Pvt.Ltd....Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the
appellant.
Mr. N.Shahu i/b. S.K. Srivastava, for the
respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 26th February, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 26th February, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by
the assessee relying on the judgment in Virtual Soft
Virtual SoftSystems Ltd. v. CIT 289 ITR 83. That judgment hasCommissioner of Income-tax v. Gold Coin Health Good
Systems Ltd. v. CIT 289 ITR 83
since been reconsidered by the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gold Coin Health Good
P. Ltd.,304 ITR 308.
P. Ltd.,304 ITR 308. Learned Counsel points out
P. Ltd.,304 ITR 308.
that irrespective of the said judgment the Appeal
had to be allowed otherwise on merits. We do not
propose to go into that issue as that issue has not
been answered by the Tribunal. In the light of
that, the impugned order is set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the
matter on merits. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,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.