Itxa/31/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Jincome-Tax-7 v. Natheshri Marketing Ltd
High Court
05 Oct 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/31/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Jincome-Tax-7 v. Natheshri Marketing Ltd
Date of order
05 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/31/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Jincome-Tax-7 v. Natheshri Marketing Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.The appeal was admitted on 16th October, 2007 on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the additions of Rs.47,02,875/- made by the assessing officer to the taxable income of the assessee u/...
Decision: The appeal is thus 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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.31 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
Naheshri Marketing Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. A.S. Shivsharan for appellant.
Mr. K.C. Pandey for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 5TH OCTOBER, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Perused appeal.
2.The appeal was admitted on 16th October, 2007 on the following substantial question of law:-
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the additions of Rs.47,02,875/- made by the assessing officer to the taxable income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act ? "
3.The affidavit filed by Mr. Surendra M. Khandar is taken on record. In the said affidavit he has made an unequivocal statement on oath that he has accepted the additions of the peak of all the parties marked as annexure 3 of 110 bank accounts which includes the addition of Rs.
47,02,875/- . In this view of the matter, the deletion of additions cannot be faulted. The view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. No perversity in the order could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. In this backdrop, no substantial question of law warranting adjudication is involved in the appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed 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.