Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12, Mum...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12, Mumbai v. Pherora Framroze And Company

High Court 17 Jan 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 12, Mumbai v. Pherora Framroze And Company
Date of order
17 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan