In The Cit-20 v. Shri Kripashankar Chaturvedi, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The substantial question of law as enumerated in paragraph-4 of this appeal is as under :- (a) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is regarding the true scope and correct interpretation of Sec.44AD and other provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and other provisions and wh...
Decision: The question as framed does 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.2210 OF 2008
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 question of law as enumerated in
paragraph-4 of this appeal is as under :-
(a) The substantial question of law arises in the
present appeal is regarding the true scope and
correct interpretation of Sec.44AD and other
provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and other provisions and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble
Tribunal is right in upholding the Order of CIT (a)
and directing the A.O. to take the net profit at 6%
of the gross labour contact receipts ?
2. The said question was also raised in Income-tax
Appeal No.1076 of 2007. The impugned order of ITAT
also refers to its order which was the subject
matter of challenge in Income-tax Appeal
No.1076/2007. We have given reasons while
: 2 :
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 question as framed does 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.