The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. L/H Late Dipchand Shah
High Court
17 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. L/H Late Dipchand Shah
Date of order
17 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. L/H Late Dipchand Shah, 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
OF 2006
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 398 OF
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 905 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Vs.
L/H Late Dipchand Shah ... Respondent
Mr. R. Ashokan for the Appellant.
Mr.Y.R. Dube for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S. MOHITE, JJ.DATED: MARCH 17, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 17, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. There is delay of 336 days in preferring the
appeal.
. We have considered the appeal on merits. We find
that the Commissioner Appeals after considering the
material on record, accepted that the statement of
the Assessee was valid and further found that there
was no material to make additions in the matter of
payment of ‘Pagari’. The ITAT by detailed reasoning
had confirmed the said findings. Since these are
purely findings of fact, the question of law would
not arise. Consequently motion along with appeal
dismissed.
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)
(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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.