The Cit City-Xii Mumbai v. M/S.nahar & Seth Enterprises
High Court
26 Mar 2008 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit City-Xii Mumbai v. M/S.nahar & Seth Enterprises
Date of order
26 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit City-Xii Mumbai v. M/S.nahar & Seth Enterprises, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.545 OF 2004
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.189 OF 2004
The CIT City-XII Mumbai ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Nahar & Seth Enterprises ..Respondents
----
Mr.A.S.Rao & Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Ms.Aasifa Khan for the respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 26th March, 2008.
PC
1. There is a delay of 269 days. We have also
heard the appeal on merits. Cconsidering the cause
shown, delay condoned.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.189 OF 2004
. The assessee is a builder who developed a plot of
land on which, as per the agreement, a temple was
also to be constructed. The facts on record shows
that the flats were purchased by a specific
community and the finding recorded is that if the
temple was constructed, it boosted the business of
sale of flats. The assessee did not get any
enduring benefit from the construction of the
temple. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the
: 2 :
appeal filed by the assessee. ITAT by detailed
reasoning has confirmed the finding of fact as
recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) in
paragraph-7 of the judgment.
2. In our opinion, these are purely finding of
facts. The question of law as framed, would not
arise and consequently, appeal dismissed.
(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.