In The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Time Technoplast Ltd.... Appellant.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. ... Respondent.
S.G. Dalal for the appellant.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the respondent.
P.C. :
CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 3[rd] November 2009.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
2.Learned counsel for both parties agree that the questions sought to be raised in this appeal are the consequential questions of the questions raised in ITXA No.2024/2009 which are covered by the Full Bench Judgment dated 16[th]October, 2009 delivered in the case of Plastiblends India Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
3.Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(V.C.DAGA 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