Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Ba...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Bal Klrishnan D. Sanghavi & Ors

High Court 24 Mar 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Bal Klrishnan D. Sanghavi & Ors
Date of order
24 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sh. Bal Klrishnan D. Sanghavi & Ors, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: We had adjourned the matter to enable the counsel for the assessee to find out whether in the subsequent years, the depreciation has been allowed.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1030 OF 2007 INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1030 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant Versus Sh. Bal KLrishnan D. Sanghavi & Ors. Respondents Mr. R. Ashokan with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Appellant. Ms. Aarti Sathe for Respodents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2009 CORAM: F.I. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: . We had adjourned the matter to enable the counsel for the assessee to find out whether in the subsequent years, the depreciation has been allowed. The learned counsel on instructions points out that in the subsequent years, depreciation has been allowed. By now the assessee has availed of the complete depreciation. The question framed remains purely academic. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, 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