Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.am...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ambika Diamonds

High Court 02 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ambika Diamonds
Date of order
02 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.ambika Diamonds, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theLearned CIT (A) has erred in directing theAssessing Officer not to levy surcharge @ 2%without appreciating the true intention of thelegislature while enacting the provisions ofsection 113 w.e.f.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.791 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax,..AppellantVs.M/s.Ambika Diamonds..RespondentMrs.Anamika Malhotra for the Appellant.Mr.Deepak Tralshawalla a/w. Mr.Vishnu S.Hadade forthe Respondent. CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. .Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.The above Appeal is admitted on the followingsubstantial question of law. The learned Counsel forthe Respondent waives service.a. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case and in law, theLearned CIT (A) has erred in directing theAssessing Officer not to levy surcharge @ 2%without appreciating the true intention of thelegislature while enacting the provisions ofsection 113 w.e.f. 01/06/2002 as also thelegal backing for levy of the surcharge @ 2%on the demand arising out of block assessmentproceedings? (S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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