The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.b.brothers Decorators
High Court
15 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.b.brothers Decorators
Date of order
15 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.b.brothers Decorators, 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.
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1165 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1262 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.285 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Vs.
M/s.B.Brothers Decorators
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.K.R.Chaudhari for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
P.C.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &V.C.DAGA, JJ.
DATE : 15TH DECEMBER, 2008
1.Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
None appeared for the Respondent, though served. Allthe above three appeals arise out of the common orderdated 27th March, 2007 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal. By way of the present Appeals,the Revenue is seeking to raise the issue whether theconsideration is a long term capital gain or a shortterm capital gain ? However, from the perusal of thejudgment dated 27th March, 2007, it is clear that theAssessee had surrendered his tenancy premises and in
view thereof, he has been allotted eight Galas which
were subsequently transferred.
2.
In view thereof and in view of the finding of
fact given by the Tribunal and specially in the lightof tenancy interest, no fault can be found in the
:2:aforesaid finding of fact. There is no question oflaw involved in the above Appeals. Hence, all theAppeals stand dismissed.
3.It is made clear that the above Appeals aredismissed on merits notwithstanding the fact that thetax effect involved in all the above appeals is less
than Rs.4,00,000/-.
(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.