Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle), Banglore v. Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd

High Court 27 Nov 2006 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcbgoa
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle), Banglore v. Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd
Date of order
27 Nov 2006
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle), Banglore v. Fomento Resorts And Hotels Ltd, the High Court (2006) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2006 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BANGLORE Versus ....Appellant FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD., ....Respondent Mr. S. R. Rivankar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Nishant Thakkar with Ms. R. Kamath, Advocates for the Respondent. -Coram:J. N. PATEL &N. A. BRITTO, JJ.-Date:27th November, 2006 P.C.:- Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. This appeal is filed against the Order dated 4-4-2006 of the ITATwherein in para 7 the learned ITAT has come to the conclusion that theAssessing Officer is required to give reasons, when asked for by theAssessee. Giving of reasons has got to be considered as implicit in Section11 of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. It is now well settled that givingreasons in support of an order is part of complying with the principles ofnatural justice. In the light of that, no fault could be found with the order of thelearned ITAT and as such no substantial question of law arises as well. Appeal dismissed. J. N. PATEL, J. N. A. BRITTO, 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