Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/2565/2011 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/2565/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , -4 Mumbai v. Prashant J. Patel

High Court 18 Nov 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2565/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , -4 Mumbai v. Prashant J. Patel
Date of order
18 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/2565/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , -4 Mumbai v. Prashant J. Patel, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 5.The appeal is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.699 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Prashant J. Patel ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr. Subramaniam with V.S. Hadade for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Four questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal. 2.Counsel for the parties state that the first two questions are covered against the revenue by the decisions of this Court in the case of The Income Tax Commissioner, Mumbai City-4 V/s. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal (L) No.4756 of 2011] decided on 28[th] July, 2011 and in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.3111 of 2009] decided on 21[st] October, 2011. Hence the first two questions raised by the revenue cannot be entertained. 3.As regards the third question is concerned, counsel for the parties state that the third question is answered against the revenue in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 V/s. M/s. Sykes & Ray Equities (I) Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.3563 of 2010] decided on 14[th ]October, 2011. Hence the third question cannot be entertained. 4.As regards the fourth question is concerned, similar question raised by the revenue in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 V/s. M/s. The Stock and Bond Trading Co. [Income Tax Appeal No.4117 of 2010] has been rejected by this Court on 14[th ]October, 2011. Hence the fourth question cannot be entertained. 5.The appeal is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.R. JOSHI, 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