In The Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 Appellant Mumbai-20 v. Nalini Properties Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
itxa-796/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.796/2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax -7AppellantMumbai-20
Vs.Nalini Properties Pvt.Ltd.
Respondent
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the AppellantMr.K.Gopal a/w Mr.Jitendra Singh for the Respondent
CORAM-J.P.DEVADHAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJDATE-10TH JANUARY,2011.
P.C.
.Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the additions made in the hands of the respondent assessee on protective basis were deleted by the Tribunal because additions made on substantive basis in the hands of Mr.Sudhakar T.Pendse have been upheld . Counsel on both the sides brought to our notice that the appeal filed by Mr.Sudhakar T.Pendse being Tax Appeal No. 186/2009 has been dismissed on 22.4.2009 .Thus the additions in the hands of Sudhakar T.Pendse on substantive basis has attained finality.
itxa-796/2009
2.In these circumstances the claim of the Revenue in
seeking to sustain the additions in the hands of the respondent-assessee cannot be accepted.
3.Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MRIDULA BHATKAR, 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.