Commissioner Of Income Tax -18Mumbai v. M/S S.k.koticha & Co
High Court
14 Feb 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax -18Mumbai v. M/S S.k.koticha & Co
Date of order
14 Feb 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax -18Mumbai v. M/S S.k.koticha & Co, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: CORAM- J.P.DEVADHAR ,AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.DATE -14TH FEBRUARY,2011 .Whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the order of C.I.T. passed u/s 263 of the Act is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: Hence the appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONI.T.X.A. 1071/2010
Commissioner of Income Tax -18Mumbai
Appellant
Vs.
M/s S.K.Koticha & Co.
Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for AppellantMr.J.D.Mistry ,Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.A.K.Jasani for Responden
P.C.
CORAM- J.P.DEVADHAR ,AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ.DATE -14TH FEBRUARY,2011
.Whether the Tribunal was justified in canceling the order of C.I.T. passed u/s 263 of the Act is the question raised in this appeal. In paragraphs 5.4 of the order the ITAT has recorded the finding that in relation to allowability of interest u/s 40-A (2)(b) and disallowance u/s 14-A , as also the genuineness of the transaction of sale of shares for the purpose of computation of capital loss, the assessing officer had conducted enquiries , collected replies and documents and thereafter has taken one of the possible views. Accordingly the Tribunal has held that when one of the possible view is taken, such a view cannot be termed as untenable in law or erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 of the
Income Tax Act,1961.
2In our opinion the decision of the Tribunal is based
on finding of fact . Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)
(J.P.Devadhar,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.