Itxa/89/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Mumbai v. Nalini Properties Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai
High Court
22 Apr 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/89/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Mumbai v. Nalini Properties Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai
Date of order
22 Apr 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/89/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Mumbai v. Nalini Properties Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The basic question raised in this appeal is, whether the undisclosed income of Rs.3,17,53,495/- is liable to be taxed in the hands of the respondent company or its director Mr.Sudhakar T.Pendse.
Decision: In this view of the matter, we see no merits in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.89 OF 2009
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.89 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant.
V/s.
Nalini Properties Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
Mr.K.Gopal with Jitendra Singh for respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2009.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2009.
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. The basic question raised in this appeal
is, whether the undisclosed income of Rs.3,17,53,495/-
is liable to be taxed in the hands of the respondent
company or its director Mr.Sudhakar T.Pendse.
2. In Income Tax Appeal No.186 of 2009 filed
by Sudhakar T.Pendse which is disposed of by us today
i.e. 22nd April, 2009 we have held that the said
amount of Rs.3,17,53,495/- is liable to be taxed as
undisclosed income of Sudhakar T.Pendse. In this view
of the matter, we see no merits in the present appeal
and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to
costs.
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.