In Itxa/2042/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -12 Mumbai v. M/S. D. K. Enterprises, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2042 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income-tax.... Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.D.K.Enterprises.
... Respondent.
Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
J.D.Mistry with Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM :V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 3[rd] November 2009.
appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused
2.We were taken through the order of the Tribunal in support of question of law sought to to be raised, to contend that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. Having gone through the same, both questions revolve around appreciation of evidence and findings of fact based thereon, which can hardly be said to be substantial questions of law. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
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.
EaseValue