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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr

High Court 24 Aug 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr
Date of order
24 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.

Decision: Hence, the petition is rejected.

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 WRIT PETITION NO. 1121 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Petitioner V/s Income Tax Settlement Commission & Anr... Respondents Mr. G.C. Srivastava i/b Ms. Anamica Malhotra for the petitioner. Mr. S.E. Dastur, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate, Mr. Nishant Thakkar and Mr. B.D. Damodar i/b Kanga & Co. for respondent no.2. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner approached the Settlement Commission disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.16,00,000/- on account of shares speculation and allied activities. A report was submitted by Mr. A.K. Jha, Commissioner of Income Tax, in which various objections were taken specifically and in general. A major objection was that expensive paintings owned by the assessee, that has been dealt with by the Settlement Commission in its order. Another point raised was regarding Demat account. We find that though the point was raised before the Settlement Commission, in the petition filed before us no ground has been raised that despite the fact that before the Commission this was urged, the Commission has not answered the same. 2.Considering the finding of the Settlement Commission, in our opinion, this is not a fit case for interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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