Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/608/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Itxa/608/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xii, Mumbai v. Harakchand N. Rambhia Mumbai

High Court 31 Aug 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/608/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xii, Mumbai v. Harakchand N. Rambhia Mumbai
Date of order
31 Aug 2004
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/608/2002 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax City-Xii, Mumbai v. Harakchand N. Rambhia Mumbai, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.

Issue: In the memo of appeal the following substantial question of law has been proposed. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee on surrender of tenancy rights is not taxable ?" 3.

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.608 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-XXII, Mumbai .. Appellant. V/s. Shri Harakchand Narshi Rambhia .. Respondent. Mr.R.Asokan i/b. K.B.Rao for the appellant. CORAM : R.M. LODHA, & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2004. P.C. : Heard. 2. In the memo of appeal the following substantial question of law has been proposed. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee on surrender of tenancy rights is not taxable ?" 3. The learned counsel for the revenue could not dispute that the proposed question is decided against the revenue by the division bench judgment of this court in the case of Cadel Weaving Mills Co. Limited V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax (249 ITR 2 265). However, the learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid judgment is under challenge before the Supreme Court. 4. Insofar as we are concerned the controversy raised through the proposed question is concluded by the division bench judgment of this court in the case cited supra. 5. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 6. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (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