The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Pradeep S. Jain
High Court
02 Jul 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Pradeep S. Jain
Date of order
02 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri. Pradeep S. Jain, 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
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
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Appellant
Versus
Shri. Pradeep S. Jain ... Respondent
Mr. A.D. Kango for the Appellant.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.DATED: JULY 02, 2008
CORAM: F.I.
K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ.
DATED: JULY 02, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
. The question of law is as framed in Para 2 of the
Appeal Memo. Both the C.I.T. (Appeal) and I.T.A.T.
have recorded concurrent finding of fact that there
are two separate activities conducted by the
Assessee one for exports and other for domestic
purposes and that there are separate machineries
kept in separate premises and separate books of
accounts. These are purely findings of fact. The
said assessee has claimed benefit only in respect of
the exports. The question of law would not arise.
Consequently, appeal dismissed.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(K.U.CHANDIWAL, 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.