Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax-25 v. Dilip V...

Commissioner Of Income Tax-25 v. Dilip V. Variya

High Court 12 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-25 v. Dilip V. Variya
Date of order
12 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
2006-07, 2005-06
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax-25 v. Dilip V. Variya, the High Court (2016) 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 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2511 OF 2013 Commissioner of Income Tax-25 Versus Dilip V. Variya ..Appellant ..Respondent ........... Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellant.Mr. N. M. Porwal for the Respondent. ........... CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 12[th] JULY, 2016 P.C.: 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 15[th] May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Mr. Pinto, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue urges the following reframed questions of law for our consideration:- “Whether income earned from sale of shares is classifiable as business income or under the head 'capital gains'?” business income or under the head 'capital gains'?” We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal followed its order in case of the same Respondent-Assessee for A.Y. 2005-06. An appeal from that order by the Revenue being Income Tax Appeal No.1088 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court on 9[th] January, 2013. Mr. Pinto further very fairly states that facts are are identical in this Assessment Year to that existing Assessment Year 2005-06. 3.Therefore, the question as framed being concluded does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 4.Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (A. K. MENON, J.) (M. S. SANKLECHA, J.) wadhwa
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan