Itxa/961/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 v. Mr.mc.sunny
High Court
12 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/961/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 v. Mr.mc.sunny
Date of order
12 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/961/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 v. Mr.mc.sunny, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs.6.93 Crores ignoring the fact that projects were completed within the block period?
Decision: 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.35 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax 10..Appellant.V/s.Mr. M. C. Sunny ..Respondent.
Mr. Tejveer Singh, for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
P.C:-
CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 12[th] MARCH, 2013.
In this Appeal by the Revenue for the block period 1[st] April, 1996 to 9[th] January, 2003, following question has been raised for our consideration.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of Tribunal deleting the addition of Rs.6.93 Crores ignoring the fact that projects were completed within the block period?
2Counsel for the parties states that income arising on project completion method has been offered to tax by the Respondent-Assessee on the completion of the project and the same has been accepted by the
Revenue in the Assessment Year in which the project was completed.
3In the above circumstances, taxing the same income for the block period does not arise. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S.SANKLECHA,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.