In Itxa/65/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 19 ,Mumbai v. Smt.kavita G.ahuja, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The substantial question of law does not arise from the same. .So far as question (c) is concerned, the same is interlinked with question (a). .In the above view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law.
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 JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.65 OF 2009The Commissioner of Income Tax..AppellantVs.Smt.Kavita G.Ahuja..RespondentMr.A.S.Shivsharan for Appellant.Mr.Sameer G.Dalal for respondent.CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATE : 22ND APRIL,2009P.C..Heard..So far as question (a) is concerned, thedecision of the Tribunal revolves around appreciationof evidence and a finding of fact is recorded by theTribunal. It cannot be said to be a substantialquestion of law..So far as question (b) is concerned, the samealso revolves around appreciation of evidence and thefinding is based on finding of fact. The substantial
question of law does not arise from the same.
.So far as question (c) is concerned, the same
is interlinked with question (a).
.In the above view of the matter, the appeal is
dismissed in limine for want of substantial question
of law. No order as to costs.
(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.
EaseValue