Case LawHigh Court › 13-Itxa=.Doc v. Accordingly, The Appeal...

13-Itxa=.Doc v. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Dismissed. No Order As To Costs

High Court 06 Jan 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
13-Itxa=.Doc v. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Dismissed. No Order As To Costs
Date of order
06 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In 13-Itxa=.Doc v. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Dismissed. No Order As To Costs, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal under Section 41 of the Income-tax Act.

Decision: 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2334 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax -IPune .. Appellant v/s. Adler Mediequip Pvt. Ltd., Pune ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b Vipul Bajpayee for the appellant Mr. M.C. Naniwadekar i/b Ruturaj H. Gurjar for the respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J. DATED : 6[th] JANUARY, 2016. P.C. 1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 20[th] February, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2003-04. 2.The Revenue has urged the following question of law for our consideration :- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in holding that the difference between the Deferred Sales Tax amount and the Net Present Value of the future liability under the scheme of Net Present Value Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra which was paid by the assessee could not be regarded as remission or cessation of liability so as to attract the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax? 3.Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue arising in this appeal stands concluded against the Revenue not only by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Sulzer India Ltd. 138 ITD 1 as recorded in the impugned order of the Tribunal but also by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sulzer India Ltd. & Ors. 369 ITR 717, upholding the view of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Sulzer India Ltd.. Accordingly, the questions as formulated being covered in favour of the respondent assessee by the decision of this Court in Sulzer India Ltd. (Supra), no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 4.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.) (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan