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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.kakad Property Developers

High Court 25 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.kakad Property Developers
Date of order
25 Aug 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.kakad Property Developers, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.916 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s.Kakad Property Developers ..Appellant..Respondent Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. Office objections are overruled. Registry is directed to register the appeal. 2.The Tribunal, in its order, has taken a view reading as under: 6................. In any case, once the asset is held to be a stock in trade of the assessee, provisions of Section 55A are not applicable as the same apply to determination of income from capital gains. In the case of the assessee, the profit on sale of office premises was held to be a business income and once it is being assessed under the head “profits from business”, the provisions of section 55A are not applicable. During the course of hearing before us, a question was put to the learned DR as to the date when the matter was referred to DVO u/s.55A of the Act, against which the valuation report was received on 22[nd]September, 2003. Despite our query, the learned DR was unable to reply the same.” 3.Reading of the aforesaid finding would go to show that the matter was referred for valuation, against which a valuation report was received and the provisions of Section 55A of the Act were not applicable. The view taken by the Tribunal, is a reasonable and possible view. No fault can be found with the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,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