Itxa/717/2002 Of Athe Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-Ix, Bombay v. Lokhandwala Construction Ind. Ltd.bombay
High Court
24 Oct 2005 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/717/2002 Of Athe Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-Ix, Bombay v. Lokhandwala Construction Ind. Ltd.bombay
Date of order
24 Oct 2005
Assessment year(s)
1987-88
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/717/2002 Of Athe Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-Ix, Bombay v. Lokhandwala Construction Ind. Ltd.bombay, the High Court (2005) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine 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
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.717 OF 2002
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1090 OF 2004
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1091 OF 2004
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.213 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
City IX, Mumbai .. Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Lokhandwala Const.Ind.
Pvt.Ltd., Mummbai .. Respondent.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the appellant.
Mr.K. Shivram with Mr.A.R. Singh for the respondent.
AND
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.117 OF 2003
Lokhandwala Const. Ind.Ltd. .. Appellant.
V/s.
The Asstt. Commissioner of
Income-tax, Range 9(2) & Anr. .. Respondents.
Mr.K. Shivram with Mr.Ajay Singh i/b. M/s.Rajesh
Shah & Co. for the appellant.
Mr.Ashok Kotangale for the respondents.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 24TH OCTOBER, 2005.
P.C. :
1. Heard rival parties.
2. So far as first question is concerned, the
2
Tribunal has relied upon its decision in the
assessee’s case for the assessment years 1987-88,
1988-89, 1989-90 and 1995-96 wherein the issue has
been decided against the Revenue. One of such orders
for the A.Y. 1987-88 was the subject matter of
challenge before this Court. The judgment of the
Tribunal has been upheld by this Court reported in
2003 (260) I.T.R. 579 (Bombay) [C.I.T. V/s.
Lokhandwala Construction Ind. Limited] to which one
of us (Devadhar, J.) is a party. In that view of the
matter, the first question cannot be said to be a
substantial question of law warranting adjudication.
3. So far as second question is concerned, the
same is based on finding of fact recorded by the
Tribunal that the assessee has been consistently
following the project completion method and the same
has been accepted by the Revenue.
4. In the above view of the matter, no
substantial questions of law arise in these appeals.
The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine with
no order as to costs.
5. In view of this order, the learned counsel
appearing for the assessee-appellant who has filed
cross-appeal on behalf of the assessee seeks
3
permission to withdraw assessee’s appeal being the
Income Tax Appeal No.117 of 2003. The same is,
accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with no order as
to costs. The appellant-assessee shall be at liberty
to apply for refund of Court fee as may be permissible
in law.
(V.C. DAGA, 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.