The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iii, Pune v. Better Value Holdings Private Limited
High Court
08 Aug 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iii, Pune v. Better Value Holdings Private Limited
Date of order
08 Aug 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – Iii, Pune v. Better Value Holdings Private Limited, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 (L) NO.703 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – III, Pune..Appellant.
Versus
Better Value Holdings Private Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.A. Sayed, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 8[th] August, 2011.
1.In this appeal, the question of law raised by the Revenue is, whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the income earned from sale and purchase of shares were liable to be assessed under the head ‘income from capital gains’ and not under the head ‘income from business’.
2.In para-18 of its judgment, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the transaction of sale of shares of Kirloskar Brothers Limited has been undertaken as a part of assessee’s overall activities of nursing the investments of promoter family in the Kirloskar
group of companies and to acquire and exercise control on such companies.
Therefore, surplus arising therefrom cannot constitute income assessable under the head ‘ profits and gains of business’.
3.In our view, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact. No question of law arises from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.A. Sayed, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, 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.