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.)
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.