The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd
High Court
05 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
05 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: The questions can be reframed as under:- "(a) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the mere request by the assessee to Assessing Officer to approach the Custodian for release of funds to meet self assessment tax liability amounts to...
Decision: Considering the above, there is no merit in this Appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO.2413 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax.....Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Harsh Estate Pvt. Ltd......Respondent
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, fo the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2009
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2009
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The Appeal has been filed on several
questions. However, basically it raises two
questions. The questions can be reframed as under:-
"(a) Whether on the facts and the
circumstances of the case the Hon’ble ITAT
was right in law in holding that the mere
request by the assessee to Assessing Officer
to approach the Custodian for release of
funds to meet self assessment tax liability
amounts to constructive payment of taxes.
(b) Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income-tax
Appellate Tribunal was right in law in
holding that the dividend of Rs.64,87,000/-
has not accrued to the assessee and thereby
(-2-)
holding that such dividend income could not
form part of the total income of the
assessee?
2. In so far as Question (a) is concerned, the
same is covered by the order of this Court in Income
Tax Appeal No.192 of 2008 The Commissioner of
Income-tax vs. M/s.Zest Holdings Pvt. Ltd., as
also Income Tax Appeal No.238 of 2008 Commissioner
of Income Tax vs. M/s.Cascade Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,
decided on 31st July, 2008. Considering the above,
there is no merit in this Appeal which is
accordingly dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, 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.