The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. Dilip P. Karani
High Court
18 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. Dilip P. Karani
Date of order
18 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-22 v. Dilip P. Karani, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In the circumstances, following the law laid down by the Division Bench, in the case of Uttamchand Jain (supra), we dismiss the appeal.
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 BOMBAYO. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.496 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-22. Vs.
...Appellant.
Dilip P. Karani.
...Respondent.
....
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant.Ms.Madhavi Tavanandi for the Respondent.
..... J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND
January 18, 2010.
P.C. :
The appeal was admitted on the following substantial
question of law:
“ Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in deleting the addition made by A.O. of Rs.17,51,400/- u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being the fictitious capital gains disclosed by the assessee under VDIS, 1997 and sum of rs.53,542/- was added u/s.69C being bogus commission @ 3% on sale despite the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon it u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has placed
on record, a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 2[nd ]
July 2009 in CIT vs. Uttamchand Jain, (Income Tax Appeal 634 of
2009) and stated that the question of law would stand covered
against the Revenue, in terms of the aforesaid judgment. No distinguishing features have been brought to the notice of the Court. In the circumstances, following the law laid down by the Division Bench, in the case of Uttamchand Jain (supra), we dismiss the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
( J.P.Devadhar, 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.