Itxa/921/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii v. Hathway Investments Ltd
High Court
23 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/921/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii v. Hathway Investments Ltd
Date of order
23 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/921/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iii v. Hathway Investments Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The question of law framed in this appeal on behalf of the department reads as under :- "Whether Order passed @ 100% on certain assets purported to have been purchased and leased back without examining the claim of the assessee was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and, theref...
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 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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 921 OF 2004
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 921 OF 2004
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 921 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
Central III, Mumbai. ...Appellant
V/s.
M/s.Hathway Investments Ltd. ...Respondents
Mr.Vimal Gupta i/b. Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the Appellant.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. ANDV.M. KANADE, J.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND
V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : JUNE 23, 2008
DATED : JUNE 23, 2008
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
P.C. :-
1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the
appellant.
2. The question of law framed in this appeal on
behalf of the department reads as under :-
"Whether Order passed @ 100% on certain assets
purported to have been purchased and leased back
without examining the claim of the assessee was
erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the
Revenue and, therefore, CIT was right in
invoking the provisions of Section 263 on this
issue?"
- 2 -
3. The Tribunal had decided this, on facts and
while referring to the judgments of this Court including
220 ITR 456 and other judgments, in favour of the
assessee and against the department. According to the
appellant, it is the scope of 263 which calls for
consideration and therefore, the question of law.
4. We are unable to accept this contention. The
question of law in the appeal alleged to be arisen in
the present case is primarily the question of fact and
no reasons, therefore, are seen.
5. Appeal is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
V.M. KANADE, 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.