Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S.hasmukh & Co. (P.g.) 366

High Court 27 Apr 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S.hasmukh & Co. (P.g.) 366
Date of order
27 Apr 2004
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/S.hasmukh & Co. (P.g.) 366, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.

Decision: Hence the Appeal is dismissed. .....

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 NO.260 OF 2004 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.260 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai .. Appellant V/s M/s.Hasmukh & Co. (P.G.) 366, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. .. Respondent Mr.R.V.Desai with Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the Appellant. Mr.A.R.Singh for the Respondent. CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. CORAM: S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 25.01.2005. DATE : 25.01.2005. DATE : 25.01.2005. P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 18.9.2002, wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- " The present assessment years 90-91 and 91-92, being the subsequent years, we are of the opinion that no addition is required to be made on account of investment in unaccounted purchases, because the unaccounted income assessed in the assessment year 89-90 was available with the assessee for such investment." 2. We find that there is no substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. The issue involved is merely a finding of fact. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. .....
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