The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Atul M. Thakkar
High Court
04 Mar 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Atul M. Thakkar
Date of order
04 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Atul M. Thakkar, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3120 OF 2007
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 1887 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Atul M. Thakkar ... Respondent
Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant.
Mr. F.V. Irani with Mr. A.K. Jasani for Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 04, 2008
P.C.
. There is delay of 190 days in preferring the
appeal.
. The question of law as framed is as under :
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT was
justified in upholding the order of CIT(A)
deleting the addition made as cash credits
appearing in the books of account of the
assessee, since the assessee failed to
discharge the burden of proof placed upon it
under section 68 of the Income Tax Act,
1961?"
. There are two concurrent findings of fact that
the burden of proof has been discharged and
consequently, the question would not arise. The
appeal along with motion disposed of.
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.