Case LawHigh Court › The Cit-9 Mumbai v. M/S.aditya Construct...

The Cit-9 Mumbai v. M/S.aditya Construction

High Court 26 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-9 Mumbai v. M/S.aditya Construction
Date of order
26 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit-9 Mumbai v. M/S.aditya Construction, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: In our opinion, no question of law would arise and consequently appeal stands dismissed.

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.224 OF 2005 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2004 The CIT-9 Mumbai ..Appellant Versus M/s.Aditya Construction & Respondents Developers Pvt.Ltd., ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.A.Vissanji & S.J.Mehta for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 26th March, 2008. PC 1. Revenue has filed appeal against the order of ITAT which was confirmed by the order passed by the CIT (Appeals). The contention of the assessee was that the loss to be incurred for construction of the court house is not a contingent liability. Tribunal noted that the assessee was bound to construct the ‘court house’ for which the rate was already decided by the Government which was very low in comparison to prevailing cost of construction. The Tribunal concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. In our opinion, no question of law would arise and consequently appeal stands 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