Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/279/2005 Of The Director Of Income-...

Itxa/279/2005 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(Exemtions) v. Smt Bhanuben S Nanavaati Foundation

High Court 07 Apr 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/279/2005 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(Exemtions) v. Smt Bhanuben S Nanavaati Foundation
Date of order
07 Apr 2008
Assessment year(s)
1996-97
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/279/2005 Of The Director Of Income-Tax(Exemtions) v. Smt Bhanuben S Nanavaati Foundation, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: In the above appeal, the following substantial question of law is sought to be raised by the revenue. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer on account of dividend and interest income treat...

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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.279 OF 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.279 OF 2005 The Director of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. Smt.Bhanuben M.Nanavati Foundation ..Respondent. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondent. CORAM : DR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. In the above appeal, the following substantial question of law is sought to be raised by the revenue. " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer on account of dividend and interest income treating the same as not eligible for exemption u/s.10(22A) ?" 2. It appears that the Tribunal has passed the above order based on the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1996-97 bearing I.T.A. No.2439 / Mum / 2000. In view thereof, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue had taken time on 24th March, 2008 - = : 2 : = - and again on 31st March, 2008 to find out whether any appeal was filed against the same or whether the revenue has accepted the said finding. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that the revenue has not filed any appeal. It appears that the revenue has accepted the said finding. Under the aforesaid facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. 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