The Cit Mumbai City Xxv v. Hitesh J.shah
High Court
26 Mar 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit Mumbai City Xxv v. Hitesh J.shah
Date of order
26 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit Mumbai City Xxv v. Hitesh J.shah, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: Revenue has preferred this appeal on the following question :- " Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the surcharge is not leviable on tax payable on undisclosed income pertaining to the block period prior to the amendment...
Decision: In the light of the above, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of CIT (A) is restored.
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.672 OF 2007
The CIT Mumbai City XXV ..Appellant
Versus
Hitesh J.Shah ..Respondent
----
Mr.A.D.Kango & 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
Date : 26th March, 2008.
PC
1. Revenue has preferred this appeal on the
following question :-
" Whether in the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law
Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in holding
that the surcharge is not leviable on tax
payable on undisclosed income pertaining
to the block period prior to the amendment
to section 113 disregarding the provision
of section 4 of the I.T. Act which is the
main charging section alongwith the annual
Finance Act which levied the surcharge ?"
2. Learned Counsel for the parties draw our
attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
: 2 :
CIT-2 V/s. Suresh N. Gupta reported in 297 ITR 322
(SC) where the Supreme Court has held that surcharge
can be levied.
3. In the light of the above, the order of the
Tribunal is set aside and the order of CIT (A) is
restored. Appeal disposed off accordingly.
(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.