Amol C. Shah (HUF) v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Amol C. Shah v. ITO 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4336 (Mum-Trib)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0846 (Bom-HC) IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Amol C. Shah (HUF) v. ITO Income Tax Appeal No. 1219 of 2017 27 January, 2020 Appellant by: Rajeev Waglay i/b. DSR Legal Respondent by: Sham Walve a/w. Pritesh Chatterjee ORDER Having regard to the issue involved in the present appeal we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Therefore, as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, notice is made returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Waglay, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel, revenue for the respondent. 3. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the Order, dated 24-8-2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'A', Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) in ITA No. 4511/Mum/2016 : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4336 (Mum-Trib) for the assessment year 2009-10. 4. Though the appellant has proposed as many as five questions, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we feel that the following substantial question of law covers the controversy in question -- 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs to the taxable income of the assessee under the head 'Income from other sources' for the assessment year under consideration?' SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0846 (Bom-HC)

IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT

UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

Amol C. Shah (HUF) v. ITO

Income Tax Appeal No. 1219 of 2017

27 January, 2020

Appellant by: Rajeev Waglay i/b. DSR Legal

Respondent by: Sham Walve a/w. Pritesh Chatterjee

ORDER

Having regard to the issue involved in the present appeal we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Therefore, as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, notice is made returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Mr. Rajeev Waglay, learned counsel for the appellant-assessee and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel, revenue for the respondent.

3. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) has been preferred by the assessee against the Order, dated 24-8-2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench 'A', Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) in ITA No. 4511/Mum/2016 : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4336 (Mum-Trib) for the assessment year 2009-10.

4. Though the appellant has proposed as many as five questions, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we feel that the following substantial question of law covers the controversy in question --

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs to the taxable income of the assessee under the head 'Income from other sources' for the assessment year under consideration?'