Commissioner Of Income Tax, Muzaffarpur v. Mithila Properties Publication & Contract Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Kachi Sarai, Muzaffarpur
High Court
11 Dec 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Muzaffarpur v. Mithila Properties Publication & Contract Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Kachi Sarai, Muzaffarpur
Date of order
11 Dec 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Muzaffarpur v. Mithila Properties Publication & Contract Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Kachi Sarai, Muzaffarpur, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.424 of 2005
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUZAFFARPUR.
----- APPELLANT
Versus
MITHILA PROPERTIES PUBLICATION & CONTRACT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. KACHI SARAI, MUZAFFARPUR.
----- RESPONDENT
-----------
06 11.12.2009
Heard Mrs. Archana Sinha for the appellant. This appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act 1961, is directed against the judgment dated 10.05.2005,
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench,
Patna in I.T.A. Nos. 454, and 455/Pat/03 for the assessment years 1997-98, and 1998-99. The following substantial question of law has been formulated in the memorandum of appeal:-
“(i) Whether on fact and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the assessee by letting out of Goodwin on rent was assessable under the head business income and not under the head income from house property.”
It appears to us that this issue is covered by the
judgment dated 28.03.2008 of a Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case No. 36 of 1987, (Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Patna Vrs. M/S Mithila Properties Publication & Contractor Enterprises (P) Ltd. Muzaffarpur),
and the analogues cases, since reported in 2008(2) BBCJ 653. In that view of the matter, there is no need to proceed any further in the matter.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(S.K.Katriar,J.)
Sym/
(Kishore K. Mandal, 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.