In Itxa/6887/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Xvi, Mumbai v. Prakash H. Doshi, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: TATED, JJ.DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made on account of surplus on revaluation assets of the firm credited to the assessee’s current capital, is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.6887 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-XVI, Mumbai V/s.Prakash H. Doshi
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND K.K. TATED, JJ.DATED : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made on account of surplus on revaluation assets of the firm credited to the assessee’s current capital, is the question raised in this appeal.
2.
Perusal of para 5 of the order of the ITAT shows that the
addition has been deleted by the ITAT by following its decision in the case of another partner Ms. Vaishali K. Shah. Admittedly, the revenue has not filed any appeal against the order of the ITAT in the case of Ms. Vaishali K. Shah. No case is made out to find fault with the decision of the ITAT in the case of Ms. Vaishali K. Shah. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. TATED, J.)
(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.