Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai v. M/S.kotak Securities Limited

High Court 28 Mar 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai v. M/S.kotak Securities Limited
Date of order
28 Mar 2011
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai v. M/S.kotak Securities Limited, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: 1.The question of law raised in this appeal is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the re-assessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2001-02 beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year.

Decision: 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 (L) NO.1845 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai Versus M/s.Kotak Securities Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.F.V. Irani i/by Mr.Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.S. Dalvi, JJ. P.C. : DATE : 28[th] March, 2011. 1.The question of law raised in this appeal is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the re-assessment proceedings initiated for the assessment year 2001-02 beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. 2.Perusal of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer, as also the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal show that in the present case assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year is sought to be reopened on the basis of the materials which were on record at the time of passing the assessment order. The fact that the assessee claimed 100% depreciation instead of 25% depreciation cannot be a ground to hold that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the purpose of assessment. In the present case, the Tribunal by following the decision of this Court in the case of ICICI Bank V/s. K.J. Rao reported in 268 ITR 203 has allowed the claim of the assessee. 3.We see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (Smt.R.S. Dalvi, 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