Itxa/437/2002 Of Jagdish C.malhotra v. The Assistant Commercial Of Income Tax And Anr
High Court
17 Sep 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/437/2002 Of Jagdish C.malhotra v. The Assistant Commercial Of Income Tax And Anr
Date of order
17 Sep 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/437/2002 Of Jagdish C.malhotra v. The Assistant Commercial Of Income Tax And Anr, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
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 BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.437 OF 2002
Jagdish Chandra Malhotra (HUF).. Appellant
v/s.1. The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Circle 9(3), Mumbai
& anr.... Respondents
Mr.J.D.Mestry i/by M/s.Mahendra Patel & Associatesfor appellant.
Mr.Vijay Kantharia i/by Mr.P.Kapur for respondents.
P.C.
Heard.
CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED:17thSeptember, 2004
2. The assessee had a flat at Delhi. He enteredinto an agreement dated 17.4.1986 for sale of thesaid flat for a consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-.The assessee received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- onthe date of execution of the agreement viz.17.9.1986 and handed over possession to thepurchaser. The conveyance was agreed to beexecuted subsequently and balance consideration ofRs.15,00,000/- was to be paid by the purchaser tothe assessee at the time of registration of theconveyance deed. The balance payment ofRs.15,00,000/- was received by the assessee on
1988-89.
counsel for the appellant has no application to the
6. The view of the Tribunal is not vitiated by anylegal infirmity.
7. No substantial question of law arises in this
appeal. Hence, dismissed in limine.
(R.M.LODHA, 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.