Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 13, Mum...

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 13, Mumbai v. Shri P.m. Khandhar

High Court 17 Jun 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 13, Mumbai v. Shri P.m. Khandhar
Date of order
17 Jun 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax – 13, Mumbai v. Shri P.m. Khandhar, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly 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 (L) NO.587 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax – 13, Mumbai Versus Shri P.M. Khandhar ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant.Mr.Bharat L. Gandhi with Mr.K.C. Pandey for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 17 June, 2010. P.C. : 1.The Tribunal recorded a statement of the Counsel for the assessee that the assessee had made a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and that Form III had been issued by the Commissioner. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue accepted this position before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that since the assessee had filed a declaration under the provisions of KVSS, 1998 and Form III was issued, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee would have to be dismissed. This position is not disputed before this Court as well. In the circumstances, the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
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