D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Date Of Order : 7.11.2006
High Court
07 Nov 2006 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Date Of Order : 7.11.2006
Date of order
07 Nov 2006
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Date Of Order : 7.11.2006, the High Court (2006) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: In view thereof, this appeal has become arun infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed as havingbecome infructuous.
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
D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.27/2003(CIT, Udaipur Vs. Smt. Harshita Chordiya)
Date of order : 7.11.2006
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant.Mr. Anjay Kothari, for the respondent.
This appeal is directed against the very samejudgment the assessee has preferred DB Income TaxAppeal No.04/2002 relating to additions made underSection 40A (3) and adjustment of Rs.6,98,000/- ofcash credit. Against the disallowance was sustainedby the Tribunal, the assessee has raised the questionof sustainment of Rs.6,98,000/- under Section 40A (3)and the cash credit to the tune of Rs.40,13,000/-
In the aforesaid circumstances, we havedecided DB Income Tax Appeal No.4/2002 and by speakingorder allowed the appeal by holding that disallowanceof deduction was not justified and that the amountrepresents the receipts from the customers against thepurchase by the customers.
In view thereof, this appeal has become
arun
infructuous and the same is hereby dismissed as havingbecome infructuous.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J.
(RAJESH BALIA), 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.