The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S.panther Investrade Ltd
High Court
27 Jan 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S.panther Investrade Ltd
Date of order
27 Jan 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... App v. M/S.panther Investrade Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Though such ground was not raised in the questions of law as formulated, ITAT while answering the issue ought to have recorded first a findings of fact as to whether the facts of the present appeal are similar to those two other matters where the issues were same.
Decision: Considering the above, the impugned order is set aside.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... App
Versus
M/s.Panther Investrade Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. U.P. Patki with Ms.Anamika Malhotra for the
Appellant.
Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: JANUARY 27, 2009P.C.
DATED: JANUARY 27, 2009
P.C.
. The Revenue has framed the questions as set out
in Para 5 of the appeal memo. We find that the
assessee had approached the I.T.A.T. against the
order of the C.I.T.(Appeal). CIT (A) in its order
had held that the assessee was not in a position to
explain the journal entries in the matter of
transfer of funds.
. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the
findings recorded by it in case of some sister
concerns. Applying the ratio in those matters to
the present appeal, CIT (A) in Para 9 observed that
since the issue is covered by those matters. The
appeal as field by the Assessee allowed.This order
is subject matter of the present appeal.
. We are in agreement with the contentions raised
on behalf of the Revenue. Though such ground was
not raised in the questions of law as formulated,
ITAT while answering the issue ought to have
recorded first a findings of fact as to whether the
facts of the present appeal are similar to those two
other matters where the issues were same. The CIT
had recorded a finding in favour of the revenue.
While reversing the findings of CIT (A) the tribunal
was bound to give reasons which in the present case
has not been done.
. Considering the above, the impugned order is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to he tribunal
for reconsidering the issue and thereafter applying
the principles which had been followed in the other
cases, if in law they are so applicable.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(F.I. REBELLO,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.