Appeal dismissed as the proposed question of law is squarely answered on facts by a Division Bench judgment (CIT vs Veekaylal Investment). No order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai
).. Appellant
Versus
M/s Lazor Syntex Ltd.
. ).. Respondent
Mr Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr J D Mistri with Mr P C Tripathi & Mr Raj Darale for the Respondent.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 .
P.C.
It is fairly stated that the proposed question of law sought to be raised in the present Appeal is squarely answered on facts by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. , 249 ITR 597 and thus no question of
law much less substantial question of law arises for determination. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
-2-
A. P. DESHPANDE, J.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.Referred¶13
CIT vs Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., 249 ITR 597
The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai
M/s Lazor Syntex Ltd.
Swatanter Kumar
A.P. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
