The Cit Central-Iii v. M/S.united Liner Agencies(Stevedores
High Court
12 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit Central-Iii v. M/S.united Liner Agencies(Stevedores
Date of order
12 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit Central-Iii v. M/S.united Liner Agencies(Stevedores, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.901 OF 2007
The CIT Central-III ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.United Liner Agencies(Stevedores)..Respondent
----
Mr.B.M.Chatterji @ Mrs.P.P.Bhosale and
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.P.R.Toprani with Usha I. Dalal for respondent.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 12.03.2008.
PC
1. The Tribunal in the impugned order in
paragraph-18 has held as under :-
" It is therefore apparent that the
reasons have been recorded without careful
examination of the material gathered at
the time of survey and any further inquiry
thereafter. We therefore hold that
initiation of proceedings under section
147 has been made based on the material,
if any, that has no specific nexus with
the assessment years under consideration
befure us."
2. These are purely findings of fact. The question
of law as framed would not arise and consequently,
appeal dismissed.
: 2 :
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(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.