The Cit v. Shri.devji Nenshi Palani
High Court
25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. Shri.devji Nenshi Palani
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit v. Shri.devji Nenshi Palani, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.989 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.989 OF 2008
The CIT .. Appellant
Vs.
Shri.Devji Nenshi Palani .. Respondent
Mr.A.S.Shivsharan for the Appellant.
Mr.K.Gopal for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 25th September, 2008
DATE : 25th September, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In this
Appeal, the Appellant is seeking to raise only one
question of law as mentioned in Paragraph No.4 of the
Appeal Memo.
2. Perused the Tribunal’s order dated 15th June, 2007.
So far as the only question of law raised in this Appeal
is concerned, the Tribunal has given a clear finding in
Paragraph No.11 of its order that there was no merit in
the Appeal of the Revenue and that there was no material
brought before the Tribunal to substantiate the stand of
the Assessing Officer that the business premises,
furniture and fixtures shown by the Assessee were used
by other parties and in view thereof, the Tribunal
concurred with the findings given by the CIT (A).
3. In view of the above, we find that the Appeal does
not involve any substantial question of law, but it is
based on finding of facts. Hence, the Appeal stands
dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.