The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Kulbhushan W.jain & Ors
High Court
11 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Kulbhushan W.jain & Ors
Date of order
11 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Kulbhushan W.jain & Ors, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.378 OF 2001
The Commissioner of Income Tax...Appellant
Vs.
Shri Kulbhushan W.Jain & Ors.. ..Respondents
Mr. P.S.Sahadevan, for the Appellant.
Mr. S.N. Inamdar with Mr. A.K. Jasani, for the
respondents.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE,JJ.DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008
P.C.:
. ITAT on the facts on record held that there
was no AOP. It has given reasons as to why it has
come to that conclusion.. From the facts we find
that several persons agreed to purchase distinct
shares in a property for which they paid distinct
consideration. The various shares were sold to them
also to the extent of their share and it is in these
circumstances that the Tribunal recorded a finding
that there was no AOP. This will be purely a
finding of fact and in the absence of Appellants
pointing out any perversity no interference called
for. The question of law as framed would not arise
and consequently Appeal dismissed.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, 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.