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

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.shapoorji Pallonji & Co.ltd

High Court 13 Mar 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.shapoorji Pallonji & Co.ltd
Date of order
13 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.shapoorji Pallonji & Co.ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: In these applications following substantial question of law is sought to be raised:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concelling the order u/s.104 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.177 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Petitioner V/s M/s.Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.Ltd. .. Respondent WITH WITH WITH INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.178 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income Tax .. Petitioner V/s M/s.Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.Ltd. .. Respondent Mr.A.Kotangale for the Petitioner. Mr.S.J.Mehta for the Respondent. DATE : 13th March, 2007. P.C.: 1. The above applications pertain to the Assessment Years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. In these applications following substantial question of law is sought to be raised:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concelling the order u/s.104 of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer. 2. Perused the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 3rd July, 1997. The Tribunal has cancelled levy of additional income tax under Section 104 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the Tribunal itself had followed its own order of the earlier year viz.Assessment Year 1981-1982 to Assessment Year 1985-1986. In view of the same, since the Revenue has accepted the said order, no useful purpose will be served by calling for the statement of the case. There is no substantial question of law involved in these applications. Hence, both the applications stand dismissed. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, 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