Itxa/4294/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Mumbai v. Babubhai Purshottamdas Stock Brokers P Ltd
High Court
20 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/4294/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Mumbai v. Babubhai Purshottamdas Stock Brokers P Ltd
Date of order
20 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/4294/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Mumbai v. Babubhai Purshottamdas Stock Brokers P Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.818 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
Babubhai Purshottamdas Stock Brokers P. Ltd...Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for appellant.
None forrespondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 20TH JULY, 2009.
P.C. :-
Heard learned counsel for the revenue. Perused the order of the Tribunal. The issue revolves around the setting aside the order by the Tribunal. A categorical finding is recorded by the Tribunal that the assessing officer had gone into all the issues and in that view of the matter, that ground is not available to the revenue. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the assessing officer had made proper inquiry during the course of the assessment proceedings and taken a possible view in regard to the issues raised by the CIT in the matter. Once a possible view has been taken, by the Tribunal, there is no question to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No fault can be found in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini 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.