Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. Following Question Of Law Is Framed In Thisappeal
High Court
23 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. Following Question Of Law Is Framed In Thisappeal
Date of order
23 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-10,Appellantmumbai v. Following Question Of Law Is Framed In Thisappeal, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 1.Following question of law is framed in thisappeal- Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justifiedin holding the Excise Duty liability of theassessee suppliers as the statutory liabilityof the assessee which in fact is a contingent,contractual liability...
Decision: Consequently therefore,appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL No. 436 OF 2007
Commissioner of Income Tax-10,AppellantMumbai
Vs.
M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd.Respondent
Mr. Vimal Gupta, for the Appellant.
Mr. P. Pardiwala with Mr. Sameer Dalal, for theRespondent.
PC :-
CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, &A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2008.
1.Following question of law is framed in thisappeal-
Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law the Hon’ble ITAT was justifiedin holding the Excise Duty liability of theassessee suppliers as the statutory liabilityof the assessee which in fact is a contingent,contractual liability of the assessee andthereby allowing the deduction ofRs.48,18,539?
2.We do not think that payment of Excise Duty
liability of the assessee is a contingent contractualliability of the assessee. As such, the question doesnot fall as question of law. Consequently therefore,appeal is dismissed.
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.
EaseValue