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.)
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.