The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.ltd
High Court
04 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.ltd
Date of order
04 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
1999-2000, 1997-98, 2002-2003
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: (B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in confirming the order of CIT(A) in directing to A.O. to adopt actual rent in respect of flat No.1500 and Municipal rateable value in respect of flat No.1600 as ALV ?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.152 OF 2009
The CIT-3, Mumbai )..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Shanudeep Pvt.Ltd., )..Respondents
----
Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the
appellant.
Mrs.V.B.Patel for the respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 4.3.2009.
PC
1. Revenue is in appeal on the following two
questions of law :-
(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right
in confirming the order of CIT(A) in holding that
the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10(33)
without deduction of any proportionate management
expenses from the gross dividend ?
(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and law, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right
in confirming the order of CIT(A) in directing to
A.O. to adopt actual rent in respect of flat
No.1500 and Municipal rateable value in respect of
flat No.1600 as ALV ?
2. Appeal arises from the order of the Tribunal
for the A.Y. 1999-2000.
3. The Tribunal in so far as question-(A) is
: 2 :
concerned, noted that CIT(A) had followed its
earlier decision for the A.Y. 1997-98. Tribunal
also noted that for the A.Y.2002-2003 Tribunal had
taken similar view. The revenue has accepted the
order of CIT(A) for the A.Y.1997-98 and also no
appeal has been preferred against the order for the
A.Y. 2002-2003. Considering the above, we can
find no fault with the finding adopted by the
Tribunal.
4. In so far as question-(B) is concerned, the
Tribunal further noted that for A.Y.1997-98, CIT(A)
held in favour of the assessee which order was not
challenged. However, the Tribunal further noted
that in the event revenue had preferred appeal for
the A.Y. 1997-98 and the issue is decided in
favour of the revenue, it will be open for the
Assessing Officer for rectifying his order in terms
set out therein.
5. Considering above, the question as framed would
not arise and consequently, appeal 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.