Commissioner Of Income-Tax-18 v. Sarojini J.sanghavi
High Court
20 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax-18 v. Sarojini J.sanghavi
Date of order
20 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax-18 v. Sarojini J.sanghavi, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.898 OF 2007
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.513 OF 2007
Commissioner of Income-tax-18 ..Appellant
Versus
Sarojini J.Sanghavi ..Respondent
----
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.V.S.Hadade for the respondent.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello &
R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 20.02.2008
PC
1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned.
Office to register the appeal.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.513 OF 2007
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the
following question of law :-
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal
has erred in holding that the unexplained
cash credit of Rs.50 Lacs in the name of
M/s.Shubham Management & Credit Services
P.Ltd., appearing in the books of accounts
of the Assessee as on 31st March, 1996 was
genuine taking into the account the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the Case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT
in 214 ITR 801 (SC) ?
: 2 :
2. There are two concurrent findings of fact. That being the case, question of law as framed would not arise and consequently, appeal dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.