The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.karimjee Pvt.ltd
High Court
07 Aug 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.karimjee Pvt.ltd
Date of order
07 Aug 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.karimjee Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2007
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1106 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Karimjee Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the Appellant.
Mr.Jitendra Singh i/by Mr.K.Gopal for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 7th August, 2008
DATE : 7th August, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Mr.Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Appellant
fairly states that he is not pressing 2nd Question but
only the 1st Question of law raised in this Appeal,
which reads as under:-
"Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in law, the Tribunal is right in allowing
depreciation on 5 wind mills, for which the
Respondent was not the owner and therefore in view of
the provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Respondent
is not entitled to claim the depreciation for the
same?
2. Perused the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal dated 28.3.2007 wherein, in paragraph 17 to 21
the Tribunal, after detailed analysis, has held that the
Respondent is fully entitled to claim the depreciation
in view of the Board’s Circular No.9 dated 23.3.1943
which is quoted in paragraph No.19 of the Tribunal’s
order. There is no dispute that the Revenue is totally
bound by the Board’s Circular. We do not find any
substantial question of law involved in this Appeal.
Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, 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.