The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19,Mumbai v. This Appeal Arises On The Following Facts
High Court
27 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19,Mumbai v. This Appeal Arises On The Following Facts
Date of order
27 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-19,Mumbai v. This Appeal Arises On The Following Facts, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
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. 401 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax-19,Mumbai......Appellant. VersusPiyushkumar G. Choudhari. ........Respondent.
Mr. Vinod Gupta, APP for the Appellant.Mr. M.Subramanian with Mr. V. S. Hadade for the Respondent.
CORAM :BILAL NAZKIandS. S. SHINDE, JJ.DATED :27TH JUNE, 2008.
P.C.:
This appeal arises on the following facts.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax contended that the assessee hadreturned agricultural income along with the non-agricultural income in theusual return filed by him. However, the incriminating material relating to theagricultural income was collected during the course of search and it came tobe known that the assessee did not have any agricultural lands and assesseewas inflating its non-taxable income by declaring bogus agricultural income.The contention of the appellant was that since the income was shown in thereturn and if there was any dispute with regard to the claims made in thereturn, it could be gone into during regular assessment but could not form
basis for a block assessment. It is submitted that such a question has alreadybeen decided by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s
Vikram A. Doshi (2002 ITR 129 {Vol.256}).
2.Although the question framed as substantial question of law in thememo of appeal is inappropriately framed but in the facts and circumstancesof the case we find that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
3.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(BILAL NAZKI, J.)
Sd/-
(S. S. SHINDE, 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.