In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Late Shri Harshad S.mehta, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In this view of the matter, all these appeals are dismissed for want of substantial question of law.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1883 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1884 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1885 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1886 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1887 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1888 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L)NO.1889 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.
Late Shri Harshad S.Mehta
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.B.M.Chatterjee i/b.Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant.Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 25[th] June,2009
DATE :
P.C.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2.Learned Counsel for both the parties submit that the issued raised in all these appeals are squarely covered by the order of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.675of 2008 passed on 10th February, 2009 in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Growmore Researchand Asset Management Ltd. In this view of the matter, all these appeals are dismissed for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,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.
EaseValue