The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai v. Sandeep Shorewala Huf
High Court
18 Sep 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai v. Sandeep Shorewala Huf
Date of order
18 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai v. Sandeep Shorewala Huf, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.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 (L) NO.2009 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Sandeep Shorewala HUF..Respondent.
Mr.A.S. Shivsharan for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. Perused appeal. Office objections are over-ruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. The appeal is taken up for hearing at the request of the learned counsel for the revenue.
2.The learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that so far as first question is concerned, the same is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Walfort Share and StockBrokers P.Ltd.reported in [2009] 310 I.T.R. 421.
3.So far as question (b) and (c) are concerned, we were taken through the order of the tribunal and discussion thereon including the findings of fact recorded by the tribunal, based on appreciation of evidence, with which no fault can be found. The view taken by the tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
4.The appeal is thus dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)(V.C. Daga, 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.