✦ Bombay High Court · 25 Jun 2012

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. SESA GOA LTD

Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2012U V BAKRE, A P LAVANDE

Case at a glance

Decided
25 Jun 2012
Bench
U V BAKRE, A P LAVANDE

Outcome

Dismissed

Hence, the appeal is dismissed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. In view of the above, no case is made out for admission of the appeal since no substantial question of law is involved in the matter.
  • Para 33. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. U. V. BAKRE, J. ssm.

Judgment

Ms. Asha Desai, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ. Date:- 25th June, 2012 P.C.:- Heard Ms. Dessai for the appellant. The substantial question of law sought to be raised in the present appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is squarely covered against the appellant by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd. Vs. CIT 327, ITR 456.

2.

In view of the above, no case is made out for admission of the appeal since no substantial question of law is involved in the matter.

Operative part

3.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. U. V. BAKRE, J. ssm.

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the appeal is dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 25 Jun 2012. The bench was U V BAKRE, A P LAVANDE.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Tax Appeal No. 49 of 2012). ← Search more judgments