Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/459/2003 Of M/S Ram And Co v. The C...

Itxa/459/2003 Of M/S Ram And Co v. The Commissioner Of Incomes-Tax,City-Xviii Mumabai

High Court 03 Nov 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/459/2003 Of M/S Ram And Co v. The Commissioner Of Incomes-Tax,City-Xviii Mumabai
Date of order
03 Nov 2004
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/459/2003 Of M/S Ram And Co v. The Commissioner Of Incomes-Tax,City-Xviii Mumabai, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine.

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 NO.459 OF 2003 M/s.Ram & Company .. Appellant. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, City-XVIII, Mumbai .. Respondent. Mr.B.V. Jhaveri with Mr.A.R. Singh for the appellant. CORAM : R.M. LODHA, &J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED : 3RD NOVEMBER, 2004. CORAM : R.M. LODHA, & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 3RD NOVEMBER, 2004. P.C. : Heard Mr.B.V. Jhaveri, the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The Tribunal in para 10 of the impugned order observed thus : ". Be that as it may, the fact remains that the ownership of the shares has not changed. It is only a facade. A firm cannot get shares registered in its name, as it is not a juristic person. That being so, physical possession of the shares cannot be transferred in the name of a firm. Hence, it is a capital, rather than revenue expenditure." 3. We do not find any legal infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal. 4. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) 2 (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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