Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3109/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Mumbai v. M/S. Fly Jac Forwarders, Mumbai
Date of order
20 Sep 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
In Itxa/3109/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Mumbai v. M/S. Fly Jac Forwarders, Mumbai, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2Perused Appeal 3This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-9-2008, raising the question as to whether the Tribunal was correct in affirming the order of CIT wherein the disallowance was restricted to Rs.
Decision: The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [V C DAGA, J]
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
mmj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3109 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-IVs.
M/s. Fly Jac Forwarders
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the AppellantNone for the Respondent
P.C.
CORAM :V C DAGA AND R M SAVANT, JJ.DATE :20[th] September, 2010
1Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.
2Perused Appeal
3This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-9-2008, raising the question as to whether the Tribunal was correct in affirming the order of CIT wherein the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 3 lakhs as against Rs.30,09,307/- disallowed by the A.O. on account of total cash expenses not support by third party claims.
4We were taken through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence and material on record, affirmed the order of the CIT (Appeal ) and restricted the expenses to the extent of 10%. The finding of fact is based on appreciation of evidence and the circumstances available on record. Looking to the concurrent findings of fact based on evidence, no substantial question of law is involved. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[R.M.SAVANT, 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.