The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai v. Sind Educationists Association
High Court
21 Dec 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai v. Sind Educationists Association
Date of order
21 Dec 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Mumbai v. Sind Educationists Association, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORIGINAL SIDE
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.684 OF 2003
The Director of Income Tax (Exemption)Mumbai.
vs.
Sind Educationists Association,
AppellantRespondent
Ms.S.V.Bharucha i/b. Mr.S.S.Sarkar for the appellant.
P.C.
CORAM: R. M. LODHA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 21st December 2004
Heard.
2. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier orders passedin the assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 1991-92,1992-93, 1993-94. Though in the memorandum of appeal,it is stated that the decision of the Tribunal for theAssessment Year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 have beenchallenged under Section 260A in appeals vide lodgingnumbers 991/2003 and 990/2003. The learned counsel forthe revenue submitted that the said lodging numbers arenot correctly stated and nothing is available with her
to suggest that the appeals against the decisions of the
Tribunal for earlier assessment years are pending.
3.
In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that
the appeal does not give rise to any substantialquestion of law.
4. Dismissed in limine.
(R.M. LODHA,J.)(J.P. DEVADHAR,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.