In Itxa/2341/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -9 Mumbai v. M/S. Chaitra Holdings P Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The questions sought to be raised in the above appeals relate to the question whether the income by way of commission should be treated as "business income" or "income from other sources".
Decision: 4.In the result, all these appeals are dismissed in limini 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 BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2341 OF 2009ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2079 OF 2009ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2119 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Chaitra Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The questions sought to be raised in the above appeals relate to the question whether the income by way of commission should be treated as "business income" or "income from other sources". The question was considered by the Tribunal in paragraph No.7 of its order.
2.The Tribunal has specifically relied upon the assessment orders passed in the case of assessee itself for the assessment years 1995-96 and thereafter which have been accepted by the revenue; wherein categorical finding has been recorded that the department had been satisfied in the
earlier years about the services being rendered by the assessee.
3.If the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal in case of assessee
itself have been accepted by the Revenue and the assessment orders of the earlier years have attained finality then, without strong and cogent reason, revenue cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold. No reasons are disclosed for taking contrary stance. Under these circumstances, we do not see appeals involve any substantial question of law.
4.In the result, all these appeals are dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(V.C.DAGA, J.)
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.