Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.enakshi Silk Mills Private Limited

High Court 13 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.enakshi Silk Mills Private Limited
Date of order
13 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
2003-2004
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.enakshi Silk Mills Private Limited, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 3.The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law and 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 NO.2409 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Enakshi Silk Mills Private Limited ..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Ms.Aasifa Khan for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 13[th] January, 2010. P.C. : 1.The following substantial question of law has been formulated by the revenue in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 12[th] September 2008. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2003-2004. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in treating the income from leased premises given on further rent as business income and not as income from other sources ? 2.The Tribunal has, in our view, correctly come to the conclusion that the income which has arisen from the Business Center was liable to be assessed as income from business and not as income from other sources. The finding of fact is that the assessee had taken premises on rent and had furnished it as a Business Center, which was equipped with all requisite facilities. On the facts, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an inference that the the assessee had exploited the premises as a commercial venture and that the income would, therefore, have to be assessed as income from business. Moreover, both in the earlier assessment year and in the subsequent assessment year, the assessment of income was under the head income from business. The Tribunal has correctly applied the principles of consistency. 3.The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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