The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Meena V.chauhan
High Court
29 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Meena V.chauhan
Date of order
29 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Meena V.chauhan, 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.917 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Vs.Meena V.Chauhan
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.K.R.Choudhari for the Appellant.Ms.Asifa Khan for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2008
P.C.
.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We
have perused the original Assessment Order as well asthe order dated 19th June,2006 passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax AppellateTribunal has decided the said Appeal in view of thefact, that on an identical issue involved in various
Appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax, were
decided in favour of the Assessee.
2.When we queried from the learned Counsel forthe Appellant, Mr.Choudhary very fairly states, thatas far as Bhanuben Jairam Chauhan is concerned, who isone of the coparceners, the Revenue has not challengedthe order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalthough the said Bhanuben Jairam Chauhan holds 25.24%share in the coparcener property. Whereas, thepresent Appeal has been filed with regard to the Meena
entertain the present Appeal. Hence, the same standsdismissed.
(V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.