Union Bank Of India, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals Ii, Mumbai
High Court
28 Mar 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Union Bank Of India, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals Ii, Mumbai
Date of order
28 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Union Bank Of India, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals Ii, Mumbai, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4165 OF 2009
Union Bank of India, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals II, Mumbai..Respondent.
Ms.Usha Shrivastav i/by Consulta Juris for the appellant.Ms.Padma Divakar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] March, 2011.
1.This appeal is filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer regarding applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the light of the Special Bench decision in the case of M/s.Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd reported in 26 SOT 603 (Mum).
2.Since the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the file of the assessing officer for denovo consideration, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. However, the assessing officer, while giving effect to the order of
the Tribunal shall take into consideration the decision of this Court in the
case of Godrej Boyce Co. V/s. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81.
3.The appeal is accordingly disposed off. No costs.
(Smt.R.S. Dalvi, 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.