The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai v. Shri Chandanmal V. Jain
High Court
12 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai v. Shri Chandanmal V. Jain
Date of order
12 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai v. Shri Chandanmal V. Jain, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is thus dismissed in limine 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.1350 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 14, Mumbai ..Appellant.
Versus
Shri Chandanmal V. Jain
..Respondent.
Mr.D.K. Kamwal for the appellant.
Mr.B.V. Jhaveri with Ms.Preeti Shukla for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 12TH AUGUST 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue and the learned counsel for the respondent. Having heard both the advocates and having gone through the order of the tribunal, we find that the tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the transaction entered into is a genuine transaction based on the circumstances available on record. Very same finding was recorded for the earlier year, against which no appeal was preferred, may be the tax effect was less. However, the genuineness of the transaction recorded by the tribunal for earlier years has also become final and conclusive.
2.In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law can be said to be involved in this appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
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.