Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-4 v...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-4 v. Kaynel Capital Limited

High Court 01 Feb 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-4 v. Kaynel Capital Limited
Date of order
01 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, City-4 v. Kaynel Capital Limited, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1340 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax, City-4 ..Appellant. Vs. Kaynel Capital Limited ..Respondent..... Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant. Mr. Sujeeth S. Karkal i/b Mr. Ajay R. Singh for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. P.C. : 1[st] February, 2010. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law : “(f) The substantial question of law arises in the present appeal isregarding the correct interpretation of Section 32 and other sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble Tribunal is right’in holding that the depreciation is allowable on the Bombay Stock Exchange membership card held by the assessee.” Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee stated that the issue which arises in the appeal is covered against the assessee by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Techno –Shares and Stocks Limited (2009) 225 CTR 337. In view of the position which is not controverted on either side, the appeal filed by the revenue would have to be allowed. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the substantial question of law shall stand answered in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in Techno Shares (supra). The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, 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