Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 v. Safes Fire Services Ltd
High Court
15 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 v. Safes Fire Services Ltd
Date of order
15 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -8 v. Safes Fire Services Ltd, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: IncomeTax Appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V.
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 BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2017
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8..Appellant
Versus
Safes Fire Services Ltd
..Respondent
...................
•Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
•Mr. Nishit Gandhi i/by Mr. Sameer Dalal for the Respondent...................
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 15, 2019.
P.C.:
1.This appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge ajudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising
following question for our consideration:-
" The Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating thewell accepted legal principle that in respect of an expenditure claimedby the assessee, there is absolute burden of proof cast on him toprove correctness of such expenditure and where the assessee hasfailed to discharge this burden as is the case in the present case, thetotal claim of the assessee is liable to be rejected and thecorresponding amount is liable to be added to the income of theassessee?"
2.As the question itself suggests the whole issue is fully
factual, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have examined therelevant voluminous material and gave relief to theassessee to a limited extent. The Tribunal while consideringthe appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue, hasindependently examined the aspect and gave further relief tothe assessee. No question of law, therefore, arises. IncomeTax Appeal is dismissed.
[ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, 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.