Itxa/86/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , Central Ii v. Shri Vikas Oberoi
High Court
08 Jun 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/86/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , Central Ii v. Shri Vikas Oberoi
Date of order
08 Jun 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/86/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , Central Ii v. Shri Vikas Oberoi, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.All the four appeals are dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2014WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2014WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2014WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-II, Mumbai
.. Appellant
Shri Vikas Oberoi .. Respondent
Mr. A.R. Malhotra a/w N.A. Kazi for the appellant Mr. R. Murlidharan a/w Mr. Atul Jasani for the respondent
P.C.
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.
DATED : 8[th] JUNE, 2016.
1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 20[th] March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) relating to Assessment Years 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08.
2.This appeal raises the following common question of law in
respect of all the four Assessment Years for our consideration :-
(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts received as share application by companies from companies in both of which the respondent assessee has beneficial interest, is not loans and advances for the purposes of invoking Section 2(22e) Act ?
3.We have today passed an order in respect of the same respondent-assessee for A. Y. 2006-07 in Income Tax Appeal No.2479 of 2013 in respect of question no.(i) therein, which is identical to the question proposed for our consideration herein. It is further agreed between the parties that for the reasons indicated in the order passed today with regard to the aforesaid question in Income Tax Appeal No.2479 of 2013, the question as formulated would not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, question as proposed is not entertained.
4.All the four appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A.K. MENON, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.