Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-10 vs India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd on 29 January, 2020

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Milind N. Jadhav

     Sonali Kilaje                                               22-ITXA-1950-17.doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                     INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1950 OF 2017


Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -10                          ..      Appellant

        v/s.

India Medtronic Pvt. Ltd.                                 ..       Respondent


Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Appellant.
Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/b. PDS Legal for the Respondent.


                                          CORAM: UJJAL BHUYAN, &
                                                 MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 29, 2020.

P. C.:-

. Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, learned standing counsel, revenue for the appellant and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) against the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "K" Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal" for short) in S.A.No. 374/ MUM/2016 for Assessment Year 2010-11.



                                                                               1 of 2




           ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2020             ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 03:29:48 :::
      Sonali Kilaje                                                             22-ITXA-1950-17.doc



3. Briefly stated, respondent had preferred Income Tax Appeal No. 1600/Mum/2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 before the Tribunal. In the said appeal, respondent also fled stay application which was numbered as S.A.No.374/MUM/2016. Tribunal passed the impugned order on the stay application staying the demand. It is this order which is challenged in the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have informed the Court that during the pendency of the present appeal, ITA No. 1600/Mum/2015 has been disposed of by the Tribunal on 17.01.2018 in favour of the assessee/respondent.

5. Since the parent appeal itself has been disposed of, the challenge made in the present proceeding to the interim order passed in the stay application does not survive.

6. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No cost.

(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN,J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 03:29:48 :::