In The Cit-20 v. Shri Kripashankar Chaturvedi, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in not considering the fact that the Revenue is in appeal before the Bombay High Court against the decision of the ITAT order dated 11.03.2005 for A.Y.1997-98 on the issue of estimation of income at 6% o...
Decision: The questions as framed do not arise and appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.224 OF 2009
The CIT-20 )..Appellant
Vs.
Shri Kripashankar Chaturvedi )..Respondent
----
Mr.R.Ashokan with Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the
appellant.
Mr.Harnansingh Khalse for the respondent.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 18.03.2009.
P.C.
1. The substantial questions of law as enumerated
in paragraph-4 of this appeal are as under :-
(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in
directing the Assessing Officer to adopt net profit
rate at 6% of the receipts as against 15% adopted by
the assessing Officer ?
(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is justified in
not considering the fact that the Revenue is in
appeal before the Bombay High Court against the
decision of the ITAT order dated 11.03.2005 for
A.Y.1997-98 on the issue of estimation of income at
6% of the receipts as against 30% adopted by the AO
in the original assessment order ?
2. The said questions were also raised in
Income-tax Appeal No.1076 of 2007. The impugned
order of ITAT also refers to its order which was the
: 2 :
subject matter of challenge in Income-tax Appeal
No.1076/2007. We have given reasons while
dismissing Income-tax Appeal No.1076/2007 which is
dismissed by a separate order passed today. For the
same reasons we find that there is no substance in
this appeal. The questions as framed do not arise
and appeal stands dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.