The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Jurisdiction, in Income Tax Appeal No. 124 of 2006, dismissed the appeal since the question of law was already settled by the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Builders Vs CIT.
The appeal was dismissed as the question of law was already settled by the Supreme Court.
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 ORDINAR |
HIGH COURT Y ORIGINAL |
OF JUDICATURE AT CIVIL JURI |
BOMBAY SDICTION |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INCOM | E TAX |
APPEAL NO.124 OF |
2006 | ||
| The Commi M/s. Atlanta |
ssioner Texti |
of Income Vs. les Pvt. Ltd. |
tax-3. | ...Appellant. ...Respondent. |
|
| Mr.P.S.Saha | devan | for | the | Appellant. | |
| Mr. J.D. Respondent |
Mistri . |
with Mr. | Raj Darak for the |
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATD : 19TH JANUARY, 2009.
PC :
| 1. | Partie | s | agree that |
the | question | of | law | framed | in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| this | appeal | is covered |
by | the jud |
gment | of | the | Supreme | |
| Court | in | the | case of |
S. | M.S.Buil | ders | Vs. | CIT | reported |
| in | 288 | ITR | 1(S.C.). | Co | nsidering | the | above, | quest |
ion of |
law as framed would not arise. Consequently, appeal
dismissed.
( R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I.REBELLO, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the question of law framed is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.M.S. Builders Vs CIT.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.M.S. Builders Vs CITFollowed¶5
S. M.S.Builders Vs CIT reported in 288 ITR 1 (S.C.)
The Commissioner of Income-tax
M/s. Atlanta Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
F.I. Rebello
R.S. Mohite
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
