The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Mr. A.s. Rao For The
High Court
29 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Mr. A.s. Rao For The
Date of order
29 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Mr. A.s. Rao For The, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.28 OF 1991
(R.A. No.1202/Bom/1989)
The Commissioner of Income-tax...Applicant
Vs.
Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd.Respondents
Mr. A.S. Rao for the Applicant
Mr.P.J. Pardiwala with Mr. Nishant Thakkar &
Mr. Rajesh Poojari i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the
Respondent.
WITH
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.28 OF 1991
(R.A. No.1137/Bom/1989)
Bombay Suburban Electric Supply Ltd.Respondents
Vs.
The Commissioner of Income-tax...Applicant
Mr.P.J. Pardiwala with Mr. Nishant Thakkar & Mr.
Rajesh Poojari i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the
Applicant.
Mr. A.S. Rao for the Respondent
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
P.C.:
P.C.:
. These are two references, one at the
instance of the Revenue and the other at the
instance of the assessee. In so far as the
reference at the instance of Revenue is concerned,
the amount is less than Rs.4.00 lakhs. In the light
(-2-)
of the CBDT Scheme, reference is returned
unanswered.
2. In so far as reference at the instance of
the assessee is concerned, in so far as the question
No.1 is concerned, the parties agree that the same
is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in
1994 ITR 294. In the light of that the said issue
is answered in favour of the revenue and against the
assessee.
3. In so far as question No.2 is concerned
learned Counsel for the assessee on instructions
states that the said issue may be returned
unanswered and in view of the smallness of the
amount involved.
4. In the light of what we have stated above
references are answered accordingly.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.