Case LawHigh Court › The Cit Central-Ii Mumbai v. Mr.b.m.chat...

The Cit Central-Ii Mumbai v. Mr.b.m.chatterji @ Mrs.p.p.bhosale

High Court 26 Mar 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit Central-Ii Mumbai v. Mr.b.m.chatterji @ Mrs.p.p.bhosale
Date of order
26 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
1990-91
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit Central-Ii Mumbai v. Mr.b.m.chatterji @ Mrs.p.p.bhosale, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The learned Tribunal considering the order passed in connected cases of Deepika A.Mehta in Income Tax Appeal No.3554/Bom/94, Income Tax Appeal No.3654/Bom/94 & Income tax Appeal No.3557/Bom/94 for A.Y.1990-91, set aside the order of the Income tax authorities on the 2 grounds and restored the issues...

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.305 OF 2006 The CIT Central-II Mumbai ..Appellant Versus Smt.Pratima Mehta ..Respondent ---- Mr.B.M.Chatterji @ Mrs.P.P.Bhosale & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.A.K.Jasani for the respondent. ---- 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. The learned Tribunal considering the order passed in connected cases of Deepika A.Mehta in Income Tax Appeal No.3554/Bom/94, Income Tax Appeal No.3654/Bom/94 & Income tax Appeal No.3557/Bom/94 for A.Y.1990-91, set aside the order of the Income tax authorities on the 2 grounds and restored the issues to the file of A.O. with the same directions and allowed the appeal of the assessee in part. 2. This appeal, according to the appellant, is preferred as they have preferred a reference against the order of the Tribunal in Deepika Mehta case. The matter was on board on 31.7.2007. The learned Counsel was not in a position to inform the Court as to what has happened to reference. In the light of : 2 : that, in our opinion, considering the order, no interference is called for. The authority below to pass appropriate order accordingly. 3. Apart from that we find that the tax incidence is less than Rs.4 lakhs. Learned Counsel states that there is a recurring issue but unable to find out, if any, other appeal is filed in this Court. For all the aforesaid reasons, appeal disposed off. (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