Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/3644/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/3644/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-14, Mumbai v. M/S. Nagrsheth Ship Breakers

High Court 16 Jul 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/3644/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-14, Mumbai v. M/S. Nagrsheth Ship Breakers
Date of order
16 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/3644/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-14, Mumbai v. M/S. Nagrsheth Ship Breakers, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is 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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.635 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant. V/s. M/s.nagarseth Ship breakers .. Respondent. Mr.Ashok kotangale i/by Pankaj Kapoor for the appellant. Mr.K. Gopal, J. Singh with Ms.Aarti Junani i/by Rustamji & Jinwala for the respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2007. P.C. : 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the I.T.A.T. dated February 25, 2003. It has come on record that the respondents herein are using land of the Gujarat Maritime Board on license/lease from time-to-time for the purposes of their business. 2. After considering the material on record, the learned Tribunal arrived at an conclusion that this could not be regarded as capital expenditure and, accordingly upheld the order of the CIT (Appeals). In other words, insofar as the factual finding is concerned, there is a concurrent finding of fact. Nothing has been shown to us warranting us to arrive at an conclusion that the said finding is perverse and or the finding is such that it was incapable of being taken, based on the material on record. 3. In the light of that, no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (F.I. REBELLO, 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