Itxa/5902/2010 Of The Comissioner Of Income Tax-10, Mumbai v. M/S. Infrastructure Leasing And Financial Services Ltd,Mumbai
High Court
12 Oct 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/5902/2010 Of The Comissioner Of Income Tax-10, Mumbai v. M/S. Infrastructure Leasing And Financial Services Ltd,Mumbai
Date of order
12 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/5902/2010 Of The Comissioner Of Income Tax-10, Mumbai v. M/S. Infrastructure Leasing And Financial Services Ltd,Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limini 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL(L) NO.2254 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd...Respondent.
Ms. Suchitra Kamble for appellant.
Mr. S.G. Dalal for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009.
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. At the instance of the revenue, appeal is taken up for admission.
2.Admittedly, the assessment was sought to be reopened after 4 years. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding in para 9 of the order that the assessee had made ample disclosures in respect of the issues in the original assessment proceedings and the assessing officer had also applied his mind to those categorical declaration in the notes of accounts. We were also taken through the impugned order. We do not find any fault in the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal based on the appreciation of evidence, facts and circumstances available on record. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the appeal. The appeal is 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.