PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL -3 vs PRISM CEMENT LTD. Advocate - Atul K Jasani, - — ITXA/2659/2018

Case under Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 06-Oct-2020

CNR: HCBM020123342018

Filing Number

ITXA/1012/2018

Filing Date

26-Apr-2018

Registration No

ITXA/2659/2018

Registration Date

08-Oct-2018

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam , Hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze Pooniwalla

Bench Type

Division

Category

DIRECT TAXES ( 10 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL -3

    Adv. Advocate- ,Suresh Kumar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRISM CEMENT LTD. Advocate - Atul K Jasani, -

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Suman Shyam,hon'ble Shri Justice Firdosh Phiroze PooniwallaView PDF

    The Bombay High Court disposed of the Revenue's Section 260A appeal against the ITAT's 31.08.2017 order concerning Assessment Year 2007-2008, finding that the substantial questions of law raised were already conclusively answered by the Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax-1, MUM v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The court determined there was no justifiable ground to admit the appeal, as the same legal issues had been settled by prior precedent and even upheld by the Supreme Court in dismissing the Revenue's SLP in a similar case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Oct-2020

    For Admission

    Provisional Board , Provisional Board

  4. 26-Apr-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. ITXA/2659/2018

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed of the Revenue's Section 260A appeal against the ITAT's 31.08.2017 order concerning Assessment Year 2007-2008, finding that the substantial questions of law raised were already conclusively answered by the Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax-1, MUM v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The court determined there was no justifiable ground to admit the appeal, as the same legal issues had been settled by prior precedent and even upheld by the Supreme Court in dismissing the Revenue's SLP in a similar case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case