The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sitcom Commercial Pvt. Ltd
High Court
29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sitcom Commercial Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.sitcom Commercial Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: The Tribunal was pleased to refer the following two questions:- 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was a company where the gross total income included mainly the income chargeable under the head Income from other sources a...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.94 OF 1996
The Commissioner of Income Tax..Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sitcom Commercial Pvt. 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 Tribunal was pleased to refer the
following two questions:-
1.Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the assessee was a
company where the gross total income
included mainly the income chargeable under
the head Income from other sources and
further that the provisions of Explanation
below Sec. 73 were not applicable to it?
2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumswtances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in directing the Assessing
Officer not to treat the loss of
(-2-)
Rs.2,00,17,000/- as speculative loss?
From the facts on record we find that business
income showed a loss of Rs.15,026/- and income from
dividend was Rs.5,40,000/-.
2. We have considered the merit of the
explanation in Income Tax Appeal No.296 of 2001
decided today i.e. 29th January, 2008. The ratio
of the said judgment would squarely apply
considering the facts on merits. In the light of
that the questions which are referred are answered
in the affirmative in favour of the Assessee and
against the Revenue.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(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.