Case LawHigh Court › The Cit-3, Mumbai v. M/S.shanudeep Pvt.l...

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)
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