Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Reliance...

Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Reliance Industries Ltd

High Court 27 Aug 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Reliance Industries Ltd
Date of order
27 Aug 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Reliance Industries Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

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.148 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax 3 : Appellant v/s Reliance Industries Ltd.: Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta Advocate for AppellantMr. J.D. Mistri a/w Raj Darak Advocate for respondent Coram : Dr. S. RadhakrishnanS.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 27.8.2008 P.C.. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. . The above appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. Whether on the facts and in the circumstanceof the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunalwas right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer asdisallowance on estimate basis out of theexpenses claimed by the assessee towardscommission and brokerage paid to variouscompanies by holding that no adhocdisallowance can be made in the absence of anyfinding of discrepancy in the accounts of theassessee even though the Assessee has notbrought on record any evidence to show thatthe brokerage/commission paid by its iscommensurate with the services rendered by therecipient companies to the assessee company? .service. The learned counsel for the respondent waives (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,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