The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai City, Mumbai v. Shri Sushil Gupta,161-C, Mittal Towers,Nariman Point,Mumbai
High Court
02 Apr 2007 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai City, Mumbai v. Shri Sushil Gupta,161-C, Mittal Towers,Nariman Point,Mumbai
Date of order
02 Apr 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai City, Mumbai v. Shri Sushil Gupta,161-C, Mittal Towers,Nariman Point,Mumbai, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C.:- 1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant 2.In the above application, the following substantial question is sought to be raised. "Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT wasright in law in directing the AssessingOfficer to delete the addition made bythe A.O. by...
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.INCOME TAX APPLICATION No.131/1999.
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai City, Mumbai.
..Applicant.
Vs.
Shri Sushil Gupta,161-C, Mittal Towers,Nariman Point,Mumbai.
..Respondent.
Mr A. S. Rao the Applicant.
None for Respondent.
CORAM:DR.S. RADHAKRISHNANAND V.C. DAGA,JJ.DATED:2ND APRIL, 2007.
P.C.:-
1.Heard the learned counsel for the
applicant
2.In the above application, the following
substantial question is sought to be raised.
"Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the ITAT wasright in law in directing the AssessingOfficer to delete the addition made bythe A.O. by disallowing the businessloss of Rs. 8,18,383.85?"
3.
The above application was admitted by
to ordinary process as well as by registered
post.
reasons recorded.
(V.C. DAGA,J.)
(DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,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.
EaseValue