Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1922/2009 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/1922/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax--5,Mum v. M/S Imperial Diamonds Pvt. Ltd

High Court 01 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1922/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax--5,Mum v. M/S Imperial Diamonds Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
01 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/1922/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax--5,Mum v. M/S Imperial Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: By this appeal the appellant sought to raise the following substantial questions of law :- a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in applying the correct interpretation of section 263 of the I.T.

Decision: Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1719 OF 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG) NO.1719 OF 2006 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. M/s.Imperial Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 1ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None present for respondent, though served. 2. By this appeal the appellant sought to raise the following substantial questions of law :- a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in applying the correct interpretation of section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and other sections of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in vacating the order of CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act setting aside the assessment order u/s. 143(1) dated 8/3/2002 ? 3. The relevant assessment year is 2000-01. 4. We have perused the Judgment of the I.T.A.T. passed on 29/6/2005. The Tribunal in paragraph 4 of the said order has held that the assessee has nowhere included the brokerage and commission which is shown as other income in Schedule K for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The same is merely a finding of fact and no substantial question of law arise out of the same. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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