In Income Tax Appeals Nos. 185 and 186 of 2014, the High Court of Bombay dismissed both appeals without entertaining them, holding that the questions of law arising were already concluded by a coordinate bench order.
Both Income Tax Appeals NOs. 185 and 186 of 2014 are dismissed without being entertained.
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.
185-14-itxa-c=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 185 OF 2014
Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Mumbai .. Appellant
v/s.
Smt. Paulomi Bakul Jain .. Respondent
WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 186 OF 2014
Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Mumbai .. Appellant
v/s.
Chandrahas K. Thackersey .. Respondent
Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for the appellant Mr. Sameer Dalal for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.
DATED : 11th AUGUST, 2016.
P.C.
respondents in the two appeals. The impugned order relates to Assessment Year 2008-09.
1 of 3
Uday S. Jagtap
185-14-itxa-c=.doc
before us is as under :-
“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the sale consideration of the shares has to be treated as income under the head “Capital Gains” and not under the head “Income from other Sources”?
2 of 3
Uday S. Jagtap
185-14-itxa-c=.doc
(A.K. MENON, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
3 of 3
Uday S. Jagtap
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeals could be entertained as the issue was already concluded by a coordinate bench.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Mumbai
Smt. Paulomi Bakul Jain
Chandrahas K. Thackersey
M.S. Sanklecha
A.K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
