Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/185/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/185/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 v. Smt. Paulomi Bakul Jain

High Court 11 Aug 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/185/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 v. Smt. Paulomi Bakul Jain
Date of order
11 Aug 2016
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/185/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 v. Smt. Paulomi Bakul Jain, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 6.Both the appeals are dismissed.

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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-12Mumbai v/s. .. Appellant Smt. Paulomi Bakul Jain .. Respondent WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-12Mumbai v/s. .. Appellant Chandrahas K. Thackersey .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellant Mr. Sameer Dalal for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J. DATED : 11[th] AUGUST, 2016. P.C. 1.These Appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the common order dated 7[th] August, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in respect of the respondents in the two appeals. The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2008-09. 2.The common identical question of law urged by the Revenue before us is as under :- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the sale consideration of the shares has to be treated as income under the head “Capital Gains” and not under the head “Income from other Sources”? 3.We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal has relied upon an order by its co-ordinate bench dated 8[th] May, 2013 in respect of Mr. Hrishikesh J. Thackersey. 4.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that the Revenue had filed an appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated 8[th] May, 2013 in the case of Hrishikesh J. Thackersey, being Income Tax Appeal No.2363 of 2013. On 14[th] June, 2016 this appeal bearing Income Tax No.2363 of 2013 was dismissed. 5.According to the Counsel for the parties, the issue raised herein stands concluded by the reasons mentioned in the order dated 14[th] June, 2016 as not giving rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, both the appeals are not entertained. 6.Both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, 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