Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai v. M/S. A.f. Ferguson & Co
High Court
18 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai v. M/S. A.f. Ferguson & Co
Date of order
18 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
2003-04
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai v. M/S. A.f. Ferguson & Co, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: For the reasons stated therein, the present 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 BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.989 OF 2011
Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Mumbai.
..Appellant.
Vs.
M/s. A.F. Ferguson & Co...Respondent.
....
Ms. Padma Divakar, for the Appellant.Mr. Sameer Chitnis i/b. Cr. Bayley & Co. for the Respondent.
....
P.C.
CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR &
A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18th JANUARY, 2012.
1.The question of law raised in this Appeal reads thus:
“Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in allowing the deduction on account of payments made to the retired partners under the provisions of the partnership deed, relying on the decision in assessee's own case for assessment year 2003-04 which is not accepted by the revenue ?”
2.Counsel for the parties state that similar question raised in the assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal (L) No.87 of 2011 in the case of CIT Vs. A.F. Ferguson & Co. has been rejected by this Court on 21.7.2011. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is dismissed.
(A. R. JOSHI, J.)
(J. P. DEVADHAR,J.)
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