In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 v. M/S.global Jewellery Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to raisethe following substantial question of law:."Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunalwas correct in law in upholding the order ofCIT(A)?" 2.We are unable to comprehend at all the abovesubstantial question of law...
Decision: The above purportedquestion of law is not at all a question of law.Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.733 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-8Vs.M/s.Global Jewellery Ltd.
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
P.C.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ.DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2008
1.Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
The learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to raisethe following substantial question of law:."Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunalwas correct in law in upholding the order ofCIT(A)?"
2.We are unable to comprehend at all the abovesubstantial question of law. The above purportedquestion of law is not at all a question of law.Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(A.V.NIRGUDE,J.)
(A.V.NIRGUDE,J.)
(A.V.NIRGUDE,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.
EaseValue