Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/9/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Itxa/9/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-25, Mumbai v. Rohit Ambalal Shah

High Court 22 Oct 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/9/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-25, Mumbai v. Rohit Ambalal Shah
Date of order
22 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
1997-98
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/9/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, City-25, Mumbai v. Rohit Ambalal Shah, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.9 OF 2005 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.9 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax ..Appellant. V/s. Rohit Ambalal Shah ..Respondent. Mr.A.D.Kango with P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. :- P.C. :- The Tribunal recorded a finding that the additional income disclosed in the V.D.I.S. proceeding as return of income was for the period of 1987-88 to 1997-98. On this basis the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the action of the assessing officer in holding that the entire income of Rs.4 lakhs was earned in the assessment year 1997-98 to be arbitrary and on that basis allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. This is clearly a finding of fact and no substantial question of law would arise. Hence appeal is dismissed. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan