Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. In...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. In This Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year

High Court 18 Mar 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. In This Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year
Date of order
18 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 v. In This Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal.

Issue: PC: In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08 following questions of law have been raised for our consideration. i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim that the cost indexation is available from 1...

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

ASN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.424 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-16. ..Appellant. v. Smt. Gita A.Ravasia...Respondent. Mr. A.R. Malhotra with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 18[th] March, 2013. PC: In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08 following questions of law have been raised for our consideration. i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim that the cost indexation is available from 1/4/1981 without appreciating the fact that the property was inherited by the assessee in F.Y. 2006-07? ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal has erred in relying on the decision of this court which was not accepted by the department and the ASN matter is sub-judice? 2) Since the issue arising in the proposed questions of law is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah in Income Tax Appeal No.3378 of 2010 rendered on 11/10/20, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 3)to costs. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as (M.S.SANKLECHA, 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