In Itxa/5214/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 Mumbai v. Anand Rathi Securities Pvct Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: 2.Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation u/s.
Decision: 3.Having heard both counsel for the parties, the appeal is allowed for the reasons recorded in our judgment in the case of CIT V/s.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1683 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
... Appellant.
V/s.
Anand Rathi Securities Pvt.Ltd.
... Respondent.
P.S.Sahadevan i/b. Vimal Gupta for appellant.
A.K.Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
P.C. :-
DATED : 1[st] October 2009.
Heard. Objections are overruled. Office to register the appeal. Appeal is taken up for hearing by consent of parties.
2.Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of
law:-
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation u/s. 32 of the Income Tax Act is allowable on the membership card of the Stock Exchange?
3.Having heard both counsel for the parties, the appeal is allowed for the reasons recorded in our judgment in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. TechnoShares & Stocks Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.971 of 2006 decided by this Court on 11[th] September, 2009. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 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.
EaseValue