In The Director Of Income Tax(Exemption v. Ghatkopar Jolly Ghmkhana, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 3)We find that in the impugned order the Tribunal has followed its decision for assessment year 2001-02 wherein the Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.There is nothing on record to indicate whether the revenue has carried the or...
Decision: 4)The appeals are accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ASN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.292 OF 2011WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.295 OF 2011
The Director of Income Tax(Exemption).
..Appellant.
v.
Ghatkopar Jolly Ghmkhana...Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.
Mr. F. V. Irani with Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent.In ITXA No.292/2011.
Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent in ITXA No.295/2011.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND
M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE : 4[th] February, 2013.
PC:
These appeals are for assessment years 2001-01 and
1999-2000 respectively.
In these appeals by the revenue the basic issue which
has been raised is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing exemption under Section-11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2000-01 and 1999-2000?
3)We find that in the impugned order the Tribunal has followed its decision for assessment year 2001-02 wherein the Tribunal allowed the respondent-assessee's claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.There is nothing on record to indicate whether the revenue has carried the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2001-02 in appeal to a higher forum. No case is made out by the revenue as to why the reasons recorded in the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2001-02 would not be applicable for assessment year 2000-01 and 1999-2000.Thus, we see no reason to entertain these appeals.
4)The appeals are accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA, 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.