Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jagdishbha...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jagdishbhai P. Bhagat

High Court 24 Jan 2003 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jagdishbhai P. Bhagat
Date of order
24 Jan 2003
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Jagdishbhai P. Bhagat, the High Court (2003) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.Versus JAGDISHBHAI P.

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 GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 387 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.Versus JAGDISHBHAI P. BHAGAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX APPLICATION No. 387 of 1999 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR BHARAT T RAO for Petitioner No. 1 MR SN SOPARKAR for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI) �We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. For the cogent reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the application under Section 256(1), we hold that there is no question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. The application is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. ����[R.K. ABICHANDANI, J.] ����[A.L. DAVE, J.] pirzada/-
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