The Commissioner Of Income Tax 5,Mumbai v. M/S. Crimson Property Pvt. Ltd
High Court
12 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax 5,Mumbai v. M/S. Crimson Property Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
12 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax 5,Mumbai v. M/S. Crimson Property Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed..
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.216 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax 5,Mumbai.
Vs.
M/s. Crimson Property Pvt. Ltd.,
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
....
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.
Mr. S.C. Tiwari a/w. Natasha Mangat, for the Respondent.
....
P.C.
CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 12th JANUARY, 2012.
1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the income derived by the assessee from the business centre is “income from business”, is the question raised in this Appeal.
2.The ITAT in para-11 of its order has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee has been granting the user to use the facility on weekly basis and the user was required to pay to the business centre the subscription and service charges on weekly basis. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that even in the earlier years the Assessing Officer
himself has passed an order that the income derived by the assessee is “business income”.
3.In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed..
(A. R. JOSHI, 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.