CCIT (OSD)/ Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax Central v. Simplex Realty Limited - 2019-LL-0218-40

Citation	2019-LL-0218-40
Appellant Name	CCIT (OSD)/ Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax Central
Respondent Name	Simplex Realty Limited
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	18/02/2019
Assessment Year	2004-05
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	application of mind • assessment
Bot Summary:	The impugned order dated 21st October, 2016 is a common order, inter alia, in respect of Assessment Years 2004 05 and 2008 09. 2 The Revenue urges the following common identical re framed question of law in both the appeals for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no application of mind on the part of the Authority granting approval 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2019 09:36:48 ::: S.R.JOSHI itxa 501 504 2019.odt 3 We note that impugned order dated 21 st October, 2015 relied upon the decision of its Co ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Shreelakha Damani to dismiss the Revenue's appeal before it. Mr. Kotangle, in support of both the appeals very fairly point out that being aggrieved by the order dated 19th August, 2015 passed by the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Damani, the Revenue had filed an appeal in this Court being Income Tax Appeal No. 608 of 2016. The above appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on 27th November, 2018 by this Court as not giving rise to any substantial question of law. 4 Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for the Revenue states that issue involved herein are identical to the issue involved in the case of Smt. Shreelekha Damani(supra). Thus, the decision of this Court dated 27 th November, 2018 will equally apply to the facts of this case as no distinguishing facts and/or law are pointed out so as to take a different view. 5 In view of the above, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law.

S.R.JOSHI itxa 501 504 2019.odt IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.501 OF 2019 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.504 OF 2019 CCIT (OSD)/ Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central .. Appellant. v/s. M/s. Simplex Realty Limited .. Respondent. Mr. Ashok Kotangle with Mr. A. K. Saxena and Mr. Prabhakar Ranshur, for Appellant in both matters. Mr. A. K. Jasani, for Respondent in both matters. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 18th FEBRUARY, 2019. P.C: These two Appeals under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge order dated 21st October, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). impugned order dated 21st October, 2016 is common order, inter alia, in respect of Assessment Years 2004 05 and 2008 09. 2 Revenue urges following common identical re framed question of law in both appeals for our consideration: Whether on facts and in circumstance of case and in law, Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no application of mind on part of Authority granting approval? 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2019 09:36:48 ::: S.R.JOSHI itxa 501 504 2019.odt 3 We note that impugned order dated 21 st October, 2015 relied upon decision of its Co ordinate Bench in case of Smt. Shreelakha Damani to dismiss Revenue's appeal before it. Mr. Kotangle, in support of both appeals very fairly point out that being aggrieved by order dated 19th August, 2015 passed by Tribunal in case of Smt. Shreelekha Damani (supra), Revenue had filed appeal in this Court being Income Tax Appeal No. 608 of 2016 (Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Shreelekha Damani). above appeal of Revenue was dismissed on 27th November, 2018 by this Court as not giving rise to any substantial question of law. 4 Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel for Revenue states that issue involved herein are identical to issue involved in case of Smt. Shreelekha Damani(supra). Thus, decision of this Court dated 27 th November, 2018 will equally apply to facts of this case as no distinguishing facts and/or law are pointed out so as to take different view. 5 In view of above, question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. 6 Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.) 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/02/2019 09:36:48 ::: CCIT (OSD)/ Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax Central v. Simplex Realty Limited

Metadata

Judgment