The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the CIT-9 Mumbai against the ITAT and CIT (Appeals) orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.224 OF 2005
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1114 OF 2004
The CIT-9 Mumbai ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Aditya Construction & Respondents
Developers Pvt.Ltd.,
----
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant.
Mr.A.Vissanji & S.J.Mehta for the respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 26th March, 2008.
PC
1. Revenue has filed appeal against the order of
ITAT which was confirmed by the order passed by the
CIT (Appeals). The contention of the assessee was
that the loss to be incurred for construction of the
court house is not a contingent liability. Tribunal
noted that the assessee was bound to construct the
‘court house’ for which the rate was already decided
by the Government which was very low in comparison
to prevailing cost of construction. The Tribunal
concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the
Commissioner (Appeals).
2. In our opinion, no question of law would arise
and consequently appeal stands dismissed.
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a question of law arises regarding the treatment of loss for constructing a court house.
The CIT-9 Mumbai
M/s. Aditya Construction Developers Pvt. Ltd.
F.I. Rebello
R.S. Mohite
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court