In Ita/40/1999 Of Katherine Bortwick v. The Comm. Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The above application was admitted on 12th April, 1999 on the following question of law : Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal and confirming the action of the C.I.T. in revising the order passed by the Assessing Officer in which the Assessing Officer had allowed benefit of S.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.40 OF 1999
Katherine Borthwick .. Petitioner.
V/s.
The Commissioner of Income-tax
Mumbai City XIII .. Respondent.
Ms.Asifa Khan with Mr.V.B. Joshi for the petitioner.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the respondent.
CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2007.
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The above application was admitted on 12th
April, 1999 on the following question of law :
Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the
appeal and confirming the action of the C.I.T.
in revising the order passed by the Assessing
Officer in which the Assessing Officer had
allowed benefit of S. 54 in respect of the two
adjoining flats used as a single house ?
3. The above application pertains to AY 1991-92.
Both the learned counsel agreed that the above question
requires consideration. In view thereof, statement of
case is called for. The Tribunal is directed to send
statement of case as expeditiously as possible.
4. The application stands disposed of.
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
2
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.