Itxa/1263/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 7, Mumbai v. M/S Pikale Inds..estate, Mumbai
High Court
21 Jan 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1263/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 7, Mumbai v. M/S Pikale Inds..estate, Mumbai
Date of order
21 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1263/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax 7, Mumbai v. M/S Pikale Inds..estate, Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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.1263 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income-tax 7 )
Mumbai )..Appellant
V/s.
M/s.Pikale Inds.Estate Mumbai )..Respondents
----
Mr.Suresh Kumar with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the
appellant.
Mr.K.B.Bhujle with Mr.G.S.Pikale i/by S.V.Pikale &
Co. for the respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 21.01.2009.
PC
1. Revenue has preferred an appeal on the following
questions :-
(A) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T. is
right in allowing the set off of long term capital
loss despite the colorable device adopted by the
assessee to avoid capital gain tax?"
(B) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in law, the Hon’ble I.T.A.T.is
rightin allowing various expenses aggregating
Rs.54,584/- disallowed by the assessing officer and
subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A) despite the fact that there was no business activitiesduring the year and the assessee has not been able to
substantiate and justify the expenses with any
support evidence?"
2. In so far as question-(A) is concerned, the
: 2 :
Tribunal recorded its finding in paragraphs-8 & 11
of its judgment. The fact that the shares have been
sold through Stock Exchange to BSE is a finding
recorded by the Tribunal. In the light of that, it
cannot be said that this was a colorable device as
admittedly the persons who sold the shares were the
owners of the shares.
3. In so far as question-(B) is concerned, the
question arises from finding of fact. The question
as framed therefore, would not arise and
consequently, appeal dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.