Case LawHigh Court › The C.i.t.-3 v. M/S.dhyan Investment & T...

The C.i.t.-3 v. M/S.dhyan Investment & Trading Co

High Court 04 Feb 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The C.i.t.-3 v. M/S.dhyan Investment & Trading Co
Date of order
04 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The C.i.t.-3 v. M/S.dhyan Investment & Trading Co, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal.

Issue: The question of law as framed is as under :- Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of rupees 83,20,998/- ? : 2 : 2.

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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4153 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1639 OF 2005 The C.I.T.-3 ..Appellant Versus M/s.Dhyan Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., ..Respondents ---- Mr.A.S.Rao & P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Raj Darak for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.2.2008 PC 1. This is a motion for condonation of 259 days delay in filing the appeal. An affidavit has been filed by one P.P.Kishchandani to support the motion. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1639 OF 2005 INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1639 OF 2005 1. The question of law as framed is as under :- Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of rupees 83,20,998/- ? : 2 : 2. The issue pertains to the portfolio management scheme profits. The dispute as raised by the revenue was that the entire amount was not paid over by the assessee to the parties. The stand of assessee was that the portfolio management scheme was a continuing activity. Learned Tribunal held that the netting is the determinative factor of the income of the assessee and after relying on SEBI guidelines, accepted the contention on behalf of the assessee. This is clearly a finding of fact. In the light of that, appeal dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (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