The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K.u.chandiwal, Jj
High Court
30 Jun 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K.u.chandiwal, Jj
Date of order
30 Jun 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. K.u.chandiwal, Jj, the High Court (2008) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.113 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Asha Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd.Respondent
Mrs. P.P. Bhosale, for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ.DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ.
DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2008
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The C.I.T.(Appeals) recorded a finding that
there was no deposits taken by the assessee from the
sister concern and the evidence on record indicate
that there was a running account between the two
companies and as such the ingredient of the deposits
are totally missing. In our opinion the finding
recorded by the C.I.T. (Appeals) and the Tribunal
cannot be faulted on that count. The Tribunal has
noted that these entries are made in day to day
business considering the peculiar nature of the
assessee’s business in which it has to hire labour,
cranes, lifts, etc. and for that it was requirexd
to make payment urgently.
2. Considering the above the question of law as
framed would not arise and consequently Appeal
dismissed.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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.