Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii...

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii v. M/S. Varun Jewels Private Limited

High Court 06 Nov 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii v. M/S. Varun Jewels Private Limited
Date of order
06 Nov 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Iii v. M/S. Varun Jewels Private Limited, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: DATE : 6[th] November, 2012 PC: Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is the question raised in this appeal.

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.71 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central III....Appellant.v. M/s. Varun Jewels Private Limited....Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta,Sr. Advocate with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant. Ms. Aarti Visanji with Mr. S.P.Mehta for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 6[th] November, 2012 PC: Whether the ITAT was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is the question raised in this appeal. 2)The dispute in the present case is whether the income from the sale of shares was liable to be assessed under the head short term capital gain or business income. The Assessing officer has held that the income from sale of shares is liable to be assessed under the head short term capital gain. The CIT was of the opinion that the said income was liable to be assessed under the head business income. The ITAT has set aside the order of CIT by recording a finding that there were two views possible and therefore the CIT was not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act . We see no infirmity in the order passed by the ITAT. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S.SANKELCHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
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