In Taxc/64/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rajkumar Mirani Manilal Dayalji And Co, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN T H E H O N ’ B L E H I G H C O U R O F J U D I C A T U R E F O RA P P E L L A N TC O M M I S S I O N E R O F< R e V n u - k f wé w iM R “
R E S P O N D E N TR A J K U M A R M I R A N IM A N I L A L D A Y A L J I& C O . ,( A s s e s s e e )V ¢S A D A R B A Z A RD H A M T A R I
2 6 0 - A O F T H E
A P P E A L U N D E R S E C T I O N‘I N C O M E T A X A C T ,
1 9 6 1
Q 1 ?[w]
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.
EaseValue