The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Bakliwal Financial Services (I) Pvt. Ltd
High Court
18 Feb 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Bakliwal Financial Services (I) Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
18 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Bakliwal Financial Services (I) Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The issue which arises in the Appeals relates to whether the ITAT was right in holding that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the membership card of the Stock Exchange.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.2891 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4
..Appellant.
Vs.
Bakliwal Financial Services (I) Pvt. Ltd...Respondent.
....
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
.....
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL (LODG.) NO.2892 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4Vs.
Dhyan Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent.
....
....
..Appellant...Respondent.
CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
P.C.:
18[th] February, 2010.
Admit. By consent and at the request of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.
Notice was issued by this Court on 1[st] February, 2010 for hearing and
final disposal. The issue which arises in the Appeals relates to whether the ITAT
was right in holding that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the membership card of the Stock Exchange. The issue is no
longer res integra, but is covered in favour of the Revenue by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd.[1]. In the circumstances, the Appeals would have to be allowed and the question of law would stand answered in favour of the Revenue. 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.