Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 4 v. Deepak Mahavir Gupta
High Court
05 Aug 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 4 v. Deepak Mahavir Gupta
Date of order
05 Aug 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central 4 v. Deepak Mahavir Gupta, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Following question is presented for our consideration:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section153A stating that in absence of any incriminating material on issuewhich has already been examined and finalized...
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
R.M. AMBERKAR(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2017
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 4
..Appellant
Versus
Deepak Mahavir Gupta
..Respondent
...................
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the AppellantMr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
...................
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 5, 2019.
P.C.:
1.This appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge the
judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai("the Tribunal" for short) dated 18.4.2016. Following
question is presented for our consideration:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and inlaw, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section153A stating that in absence of any incriminating material on issuewhich has already been examined and finalized in originalassessment cannot be re-examined and reopened?"
2. The issue is squarely covered against the Revenue by
judgment of this Court in the case of CIT-II, Thane Vs.
Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva)
Ltd[1] in which this Court examined the issue at length.Hence, without recording separate reasons, this Appeal isalso dismissed.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]
1[2015] 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bombay)
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.