In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai v. Mr.krishna Premnarayan, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 2.For the reasons stated therein, these appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 NO.1758 OF 2011ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1831 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusMr.Krishna Premnarayan ..Respondent.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.271 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai..Appellant.VersusSmt.Sangita Krishan Premnarayan ..Respondent.
..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 28[th] September 2011
1.Counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the
Revenue in the case of another co-owner (CIT V/s. Kailash Premnarayan)
being Income Tax Appeal No.4607 of 2010 has been rejected by us today.
2.For the reasons stated therein, these appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, 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.
EaseValue