In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12, Mumbai v. Pherora Framroze And Company, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.The question of law raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to admit additional ground raised by the Revenue by holding that the additional ground enhances the scope of subject matter of the appeal and further results in enhancement of income.
Decision: The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.130 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 12, Mumbai
..Appellant.
Versus
Pherora Framroze and Company..Respondent.
Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Counsel i/by R.A.K. Najam ES Soni for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &
Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 17[th] January, 2011.
1.The question of law raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to admit additional ground raised by the Revenue by holding that the additional ground enhances the scope of subject matter of
the appeal and further results in enhancement of income. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has declined to entertain the additional ground by following its decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.
2.It appears that the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order
of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years have been dismissed for want
of removal of office objections. No steps have been taken to restore these
appeals and the order passed by the Tribunal in those assessment years have attained finalilty.
3.In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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.