In Itxa/904/2008 Of The Commissione Rof Income-Tax-Central Ii,Mum v. M/S.k.raheja Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is, 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.
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.904 OF 2008The Commissioner of Income Tax..AppellantVs.M/s.K.Raheja Pvt.Ltd...RespondentMr.B.M.Chatterjee a/w.Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for Appellant.Mr.J.D.Mistry a/w.Ms.Vedpathak i/b.Mehta &Girdharilal for respondent.CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATE : 22ND APRIL,2009P.C..Heard.2.The Tribunal has recorded finding of factafter appreciation of evidence and also observed thatthe Assessing Officer has failed to bring on recordany evidence to prove that the investments made in thecase of assessee in the preceding years have been madeout of borrowed funds. In this view of the matter, nosubstantial question of law involved in the present
appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine
with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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