Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Imfa Holdings Pvt.ltd
High Court
10 Nov 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Imfa Holdings Pvt.ltd
Date of order
10 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Imfa Holdings Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1913 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.Imfa Holdings Pvt.Ltd.
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.Ms.Yogini Ghawale i/b. Roy’s Law Firm for respondent.
P.C.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 10[th] NOVEMBER,2009
DATE :
1.Heard.
Perused appeal.
2.The appeal is directed against the order dated 1[st] August, 2008. The Tribunal, in paragraph No.6 of its order, has recorded a finding of fact reading as under:
6.We have considered the submissions made by both the parties, material on record and orders of the authorities below. It is noted that at the time of filing of the return the provisions of Section 14A were not on statute, hence, the assessee cannot be expected to do impossible in view of retrospective legislation made subsequently. We also find that the assessee has disclosed all material facts and it is neither a case of concealment of income nor of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order of the Learned CIT (A) is correct in law. Accordingly, we confirm the same. Thus, ground raised by the Revenue for both the years is rejected.
3.The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. We see no fault with the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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.