The Cit-24 v. M/S.sharad Construction Company
High Court
02 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-24 v. M/S.sharad Construction Company
Date of order
02 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-24 v. M/S.sharad Construction Company, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, the 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1246 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1246 OF 2008
The CIT-24 .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sharad Construction Company .. Respondent
Mr.R.Ashokan for the Appellant.
Mr.K.Shivarama with Mr.A.R.Singh for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 2nd December, 2008
DATE : 2nd December, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused
the Tribunal’s judgment dated 22nd April, 2008 wherein
in paragraph No.10.1 the Tribunal has categorically
observed as under:-
"We noted that the basis on which the AO has applied
the rate @ 1775/- per sq.ft. is the paper found
during the course or survey from the possession of
Shri.Tikkam Jain, an employee of the assessee. We
have seen the contents of this paper reproduced in
the order of the AO and found that this paper does
not indicate anything about the transaction of the
year under consideration. The assessee has disclosed
the sale price which was recorded in the books of
account and that was accepted by the AO also.
Thereafter, proceedings u/s.147/148 were initiated.
As inferred from the order of the AO, the proceedings
u/s.147/148 were initiated on the basis of the paper
found during the course of survey which is relevant
to assessment year 2006-07 and not 2003-04."
2. In view of above finding of fact there is no
substantial question of law involved in this Appeal.
Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.