In Income Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2003, the Bombay High Court refused to consider the appellant's claim due to lack of evidence proving agricultural income. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed.
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.
Diksha Rane
Digitally signed by DIKSHA DIKSHA DINESH DINESH RANEDate: RANE 2021.09.2318:27:22 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2003
M/s. Therelek Machines Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant vs. The Income Tax Ofcere Ward-3(6)e Mumbai. ..Respondent
Mr. Ashok Patil i/b. Ms. Jyoti Dialani for appellant. Mr. Ashok Kotangale i/b. Mr. A.K. Saxena for respondent.
C0RAM : K. R. SHRIRAM
M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
P.C. :
Mr. Patil states that for the subsequent years the agricultural income was exempted but for the assessment year in questione admittedlye appellant had not provided any evidence that the fruitse vegetables or coconuts were sold to anybody. If it is appellant’s case that there was no evidence to confrm that the income disclosed as a agricultural income was in fact agricultural income the question of this Court devoting any time does not arise.
2. Appeal dismissed.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
1/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal regarding the lack of evidence for agricultural income should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Therelek Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(6)e Mumbai
M. S. Karnik
K. R. Shriram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
