Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/921/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

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.
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