Case LawHigh Court › The C.i.t. - 18, Mumbai v. Suryajirao S....

The C.i.t. - 18, Mumbai v. Suryajirao S. More (Huf

High Court 08 Oct 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The C.i.t. - 18, Mumbai v. Suryajirao S. More (Huf
Date of order
08 Oct 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The C.i.t. - 18, Mumbai v. Suryajirao S. More (Huf, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICITON INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.975 OF 2004 The C.I.T. - 18, Mumbai .. Appellant. Versus Suryajirao S. More (HUF) .. Respondent. Mr.R.G. Bhat for the appellant. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2007. P.C. : 1. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of this Court in the case of J.K. Investors (Bombay) Limited reported in 112 Taxman 107. 2. Considering the above, question of law as framed would not arise. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (F.I. REBELLO, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan