In Itxa/3124/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4 Mumbai v. Unique Stockbro Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Both the appeals are ad mitted on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation u/s.32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on the membership card of the stock exchange ? " 3.H...
Decision: Both the appeals are ad mitted on the following substantial question of law:- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation u/s.32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on the membership card of the stock exchange ? " 3.H...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1818 OF 2009 ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1819 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Unique Stockbro Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.None for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
P.C. :-
DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2009.
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. In spite of service, nobody
is present on behalf of respondent. Both the appeals are ad
mitted on the following substantial question of law:-
" Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation u/s.32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on the membership card of the stock exchange ? "
3.Having heard counsel for the revenue, both the appeals are allowed for the reasons recorded in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.971 of 2006 [CIT V/s. M/s. Techno Shares & StocksLtd. (with other matters)decided on 11[th] September, 2009 since t
he question sought to be raised relates to the depreciation with regard to BSE membership card. The question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 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.
EaseValue