Itxa/1073/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12 v. Smita Manoj Modi
High Court
22 Nov 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1073/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12 v. Smita Manoj Modi
Date of order
22 Nov 2016
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/1073/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12 v. Smita Manoj Modi, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Decision: 5.Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1073 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12VersusSmt. Smita Manoj Modi
..Appellant
..Respondent
...........
Mr. P. C. Chhotaray for the Appellant.Mr. Sameer Dalal i/b. Vipul Joshi for the Respondent.
...........
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 22[nd] NOVEMBER, 2016
P.C.:
1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 22[nd] January, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08.
2. This appeal raises the following substantial question of law for our consideration :-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in
law, the Tribunal was justified in not upholding the order of the Assessing Officer where the Assessing Officer had held that the
income shown as long term capital gains by the assessee should be taxed under the head “profits and Gains of Business and Profession?”
3.Mr. P. C. Chhotaray, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states that the issue raised herein stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by CBDT Circular No.6 of 2016 dated 29[th ]February, 2016.
4.In the above view the question as proposed by the Revenue does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Hence not entertained.
5.Appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
(A. K. MENON, J.)
(M. S. SANKLECHA, 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.