Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai v. M/S.cyanamid Agro Ltd
High Court
31 Jan 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai v. M/S.cyanamid Agro Ltd
Date of order
31 Jan 2011
Assessment year(s)
1994-95
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax-6, Mumbai v. M/S.cyanamid Agro Ltd, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: PC 1Two questions are raised by the Revenue in this Appeal which reads thus :- (a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT are correct to hold that sum of Rs.24,63,742/- incurred and debited to the profit and loss account related to the closing stock of...
Decision: 4In this view of the matter, Appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
KJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4108 OF 2009
Commissioner of Income Tax-6, MumbaiVs.M/s.Cyanamid Agro Ltd.,
)..Appellants
)..Respondents
----
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellants.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for the respondents.
----
CORAM : J. P .DEVADHAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ
DATE : 31/1/2011.
PC
1Two questions are raised by the Revenue in this Appeal
which reads thus :-
(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT are correct to hold that sum of Rs.24,63,742/- incurred and debited to the profit and loss account related to the closing stock of goods is not to be considered as part of value of closing stock ?
(b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble ITAT are correct to hold that Rs.
5,94,450/- incurred on production of advertisement film is a revenue expenditure ?
2As regards first question is concerned, Counsel for the Revenue states that the decision of the Tribunal in the assessees’ own case for the A.Y.1994-95 has been accepted by the Revenue and no appeal has been filed against the same. In this view of the matter, first question cannot be entertained.
3As regards 2[nd] question, Counsel for the Revenue states that the said question is answered against the Revenue by the decision
in the case of CIT Vs.Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd., reported in [2009] 315 ITR 134 (Bom).
4In this view of the matter, Appeal is dismissed.
(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,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.