The Commissioner Of Incometax, Aurangabad v. Watchland Distributors,Aurangabad
High Court
16 Jan 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcaurdb
Parties
The Commissioner Of Incometax, Aurangabad v. Watchland Distributors,Aurangabad
Date of order
16 Jan 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Incometax, Aurangabad v. Watchland Distributors,Aurangabad, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.81 OF 2013
The Commissioner of IncomeTax, Aurangabad
.. Appellant
Versus
Watchland Distributors,Aurangabad
..Respondent
Mr Alok Sharma, Sr.Standing Counsel for appellant
PER COURT
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 16[th] January 2014
Heard Mr Sharma appearing for the appellant.
2.Perused the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.4.2013 and that of the Commissioner, Income Tax, Aurangabad dated 1.3.2011. Upon perusal thereof, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for determination and consideration in this appeal. The reasons assigned by both the Commissioner, Income Tax and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are based on factual matters and as noted in paragraphs 6, 7, 7.1 and 8 of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE
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