The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.manoj Textiles
High Court
01 Aug 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.manoj Textiles
Date of order
01 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.manoj Textiles, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1397 OF 2000
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1397 OF 2000
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Manoj Textiles .. Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Ms.Asifa Khan for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 1st August, 2008
DATE : 1st August, 2008
DATE : 1st August, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Ms.Asifa Khan, the learned Counsel for the Respondents
has pointed out that for the earlier Assessment Year
viz.1987-1988 the very same issue (as raised in the
present Appeal) was raised before the Tribunal and the
Tribunal found that it was a mere finding of fact and
had refused to refer the same as no question of law was
involved. Mr.Sahadevan the learned Counsel for the
Appellant is unable to point out any question of law.
2. Hence, the question raised in this Appeal is mere
finding of fact. No question of law is involved in this
Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.