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)
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.