Itxa/95/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Iii,Mum v. Mr Sanjay Narang
High Court
22 Nov 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/95/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Iii,Mum v. Mr Sanjay Narang
Date of order
22 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/95/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Central-Iii,Mum v. Mr Sanjay Narang, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.95 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III
..Appellant.
V/s.
Mr. Sanjay Narang
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.
Mr. Jitendra Jain with Jas Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal for respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ.
DATED : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010
P.C. :-
1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. The question raised by the revenue in this appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 26/10/2007 reads as under:-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting addition under section 28(iv) amounting to Rs.27.29 lakhs regarding benefit from use of BMW car by the assessee ? “
The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the car in
possession of the assessee on the date of search did not belong to the assessee and it belonged to M/s. PIEM Hotels Pvt. Ltd. The said car was in possession of the assessee as the assessee was rendering professional services to Taj Group of Hotels. The Tribunal further held that if the car did not belong to the assessee, then making any addition with reference to the value of the car does not arise. The Tribunal further held that the perquisite value of the car, if any, could not be made in block assessment. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(R.M. SAVANT, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.