Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Prakash Bhikulal Shah
[Citation -2014-LL-1204-1]

Citation 2014-LL-1204-1
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income Tax-III
Respondent Name Prakash Bhikulal Shah
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/12/2014
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags capital gain • indexed cost
Bot Summary: CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI h A.A. SAYED, JJ. P.C. ig DATED : 4 DECEMBER 2014 The concurrent orders of the First Appellate Authority H and the Tribunal are challenged in this Appeal by the Revenue. The Commissioner corrected the Assessing Officer and while B doing so the Commissioner applied the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Mr.Tejveer Singh submits that in the light of the rt judgment of this Court in Manjula Shah, the Tribunal's order ou cannot be faulted. It does not give rise any substantial question of law. In view of this fair concession, the Appeal fails and it is dismissed. To be fair to Mr.Tejveer Singh, he submits that the h Revenue has not accepted the judgment of this Court in the case of ig Manjula Shah and challenged it before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not see how we can ignore and brush aside the y binding judgment of this Court on the same point and question of ba law, because the Appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.


1/2 itxa-1561-12.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rt INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1561 OF 2012 ou Commissioner of Income Tax-III ...Appellant v/s. Prakash Bhikulal Shah ...Respondent Mr.Tejveer Singh for Appellant. C Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & h A.A. SAYED, JJ. P.C. ig DATED : 4 DECEMBER 2014 concurrent orders of First Appellate Authority H and Tribunal are challenged in this Appeal by Revenue. y 2. Assessment Year is 2007-08 and addition of ba Rs.1,79,85,742/- towards Long Term Capital Gain has been deleted. 3. reasons for deletion are that Assessing om Officer was in error in taking Indexed cost of 1996 instead of 1981. Commissioner corrected Assessing Officer and while B doing so Commissioner applied ratio of judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Manjula J. Shah, (2013) 355 ITR 474 (Bom). Uday Kambli 1/2 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 13:54:04 ::: 2/2 itxa-1561-12.doc 4. Mr.Tejveer Singh submits that in light of rt judgment of this Court in Manjula Shah (supra), Tribunal's order ou cannot be faulted. It does not give rise any substantial question of law. In view of this fair concession, Appeal fails and it is dismissed. C 5. To be fair to Mr.Tejveer Singh, he submits that h Revenue has not accepted judgment of this Court in case of ig Manjula Shah (supra) and challenged it before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Appeal is pending. H 6. We do not see how we can ignore and brush aside y binding judgment of this Court on same point and question of ba law, because Appeal is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. That will not enable us to admit this Appeal. Appeal is, om therefore, dismissed. No costs. B (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) Uday Kambli 2/2 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 13:54:04 ::: Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Prakash Bhikulal Shah
Report Error