Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1443/2009 Of E Commissioner Of Inco...

Itxa/1443/2009 Of E Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4,Mum v. M/S Brijmohan Sagarmal Capital

High Court 11 Sep 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1443/2009 Of E Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4,Mum v. M/S Brijmohan Sagarmal Capital
Date of order
11 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itxa/1443/2009 Of E Commissioner Of Income-Tax-4,Mum v. M/S Brijmohan Sagarmal Capital, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the depreciation is allowable on the Bombay Stock Exchange Membership card held by the assessee ? " 2.By consent of parties, ap...

Decision: 3.Having heard both counsel for the parties, appeal is allowed for the reasons recorded in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in IncomeTax Appeal (L) No.971 of 2006[CIT V/s.

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.1443 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Brijmohan Sagarmal Capital ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr. P.R. Toprani for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and respondent. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that the depreciation is allowable on the Bombay Stock Exchange Membership card held by the assessee ? " 2.By consent of parties, appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3.Having heard both counsel for the parties, appeal is allowed for the reasons recorded in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in IncomeTax Appeal (L) No.971 of 2006[CIT V/s. M/s. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd.(with other matters)decided on 11[th] September, 2009. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan