Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Mr. A....

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.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan