The Director Of Income Tax (It)-I v.
High Court
17 Jul 2014 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Director Of Income Tax (It)-I v. —
Date of order
17 Jul 2014
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Director Of Income Tax (It)-I v. , the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sbw
*1*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.431 OF 2012
The Director of Income Tax (IT)-I..Appellant-Versus-M/s. DHL Operations B. V.C/o PWC Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent
...........
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the Appellant.Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Madhur Agarwal & Balasaheb Yewale i/b. Rajesh Shah & Co. for the Respondent.
...........
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARIAND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE :- 17[th] JULY, 2014
P.C.:
1]Having heard Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned counsel, appearing in support of this appeal and Mr. Pardiwalla, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal on 21[st] September, 2011 in the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 does not raise any substantial question of law. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons as to why the Assessing Officer could not have undertaken the exercise in the limited jurisdiction. Even otherwise, on merits as well, the Tribunal's view cannot
1/2
be said to be perverse. The Tribunal in the peculiar facts and considering the double taxation avoidance agreement rendered a finding following its own Special Bench decision. For all these reasons, we do not find that the appeal raises any substantial question of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
wadhwa
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.