Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/187/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/187/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax3 v. M/S Dainty Investment And Leasing P.ltd

High Court 17 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/187/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax3 v. M/S Dainty Investment And Leasing P.ltd
Date of order
17 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/187/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax3 v. M/S Dainty Investment And Leasing P.ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.187 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s appearances, Court’s orders order or directions ----------------------------------------------------- ¦Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. ¦Mr.T.D.Mistry with Mr.Raj Darak ¦for the Respondent. ¦ ¦ ¦ CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ¦ J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. ¦ DATED:17TH JULY, 2008 P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Perusal of the order of the tribunal shows that the tribunal has relied for its finding on three judgments of the tribunal, which are mentioned in paragraph 3. It has also relied on 4th judgment in the case of Rajanna Traders Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.4749/M/03. About that judgment there is no statement made in the memorandum of appeal. The order of the tribunal in that appeal - 2 - being ITA No.4749/M/03 was not challenged. The tax impact was less than Rs.4 lakh. It appears that those orders have been accepted by the Revenue. In our opinion, therefore, appeal cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,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