In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Nitiraj Properties Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and the circumstancesof the case and in law the ITAT was justifiedin entertaining the miscellaneous applicationand in deleting the addition of Rs.3.32 croresmade under Section 69 of the Act?B.
Decision: Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
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.68 OF 2006
Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant
Vs.
Nitiraj Properties Pvt.Ltd...Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.Mr.R.Murlidhar a/w. Mr.Darshan Mehta i/b.DhruveLiladhar & Co. for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &V.C.DAGA, JJ.DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008
P.C.
.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By
way of the present Appeal, the Appellant is seeking toraise the following substantial questions of law:
A. Whether on the facts and the circumstancesof the case and in law the ITAT was justifiedin entertaining the miscellaneous applicationand in deleting the addition of Rs.3.32 croresmade under Section 69 of the Act?B. Whether entertaining of the miscellaneousapplication amounts to review of an order notpermitted under the provisions of the Act andbeing beyond of the power of the ITAT underthe Act ?2.It is unfortunate that the Appellant has noteven bothered to annex the copy of the order passed in
Miscellaneous Application, though both the questions
of law arose out of the same.
view thereof, we are not inclined to entertain the
above Appeal. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.