The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sinore Trading Ltd
High Court
29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sinore Trading Ltd
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sinore Trading Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
(-1-)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.179 OF 1996
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sinore Trading Ltd........Respondent
Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the
Appellant.
Mr. J.D. Mistry with Mr. Raj Darak, for the
Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE,JJ.DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The Reference papers were missing from the
Registry. As the papers are not traceable Registry
is permitted to reconstruct the record.
2. The Tribunal was pleased to refer the
following two questions:-
1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in law in
holding that the loss in the share
transaction is not a speculation loss?
2. From the facts on record we find that income
from business showed a loss of Rs.39,684/- and
income from other sources was in the sum of
Rs.4,26,898/-.
(-2-)
3. Though the Tribunal has referred the
question as framed the question referred to can be
answered considering in the explanation to Section
73 of the I.T. Act.
4. For the reasons given while disposing of
Income Tax Appeal No.296 of 2001 decided today i.e.
29th January, 2008 the reference will have to be
answered in the affirmative in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue. Reference
disposed of accordingly.
(R.S.MOHITE, 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.