Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M...

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S.jyoti Minerals (P) Ltd(D.b.income Tax Appeal

High Court 17 May 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S.jyoti Minerals (P) Ltd(D.b.income Tax Appeal
Date of order
17 May 2016
Assessment year(s)
2004-05
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur v. M/S.jyoti Minerals (P) Ltd(D.b.income Tax Appeal, the High Court (2016) allowed the appeal.

Decision: Learned counsel submitted that thesaid appeal preferred by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year2004-05 stands dismissed by this court vide order dated 22.5.13.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR VS. M/S.JYOTI MINERALS (P) LTD(D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.64/13) Dated:- 17.5.16. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHAHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr.K.K.Bissa, for the appellant. 1.This appeal is directed against order dated 14.12.12 of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur,whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue, questioning the legalityof the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)],deleting the disallowance of addition made by the Assessing Officer(AO) out of U.K. office expenses and foreign travel expenses, standsdismissed. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that theITAT has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee relying on theirorder dated 30.1.09 passed in ITA No.653/JU/2007 and 638/JU/2007,pertaining to assessment year 2004-05, whereby the similar additionsmade by the AO were deleted. Learned counsel fairly submitted thatagainst the said order passed by the ITAT, the Revenue had preferredan appeal before this court being D.B.I.T. Appeal No.48/11, whereinidentical question of law though raised by the Revenue was notconsidered to be a substantial question of law and consequently, noquestion as proposed was framed. Learned counsel submitted that thesaid appeal preferred by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year2004-05 stands dismissed by this court vide order dated 22.5.13. Learned counsel further submitted that in yet another appeal beingD.B.I.T.Appeal No.13/08 preferred by the Revenue, pertaining toassessment year 2003-04, the identical question of law as proposedwas not treated to be substantial question of law rather, the findingarrived at by the ITAT in this regard was treated to be pure finding offact, while admitting the appeal on some other substantial question oflaw, vide order dated 11.1.08 passed by this court. The AppealNo.13/08 also stand dismissed by this court vide order dated 17.5.13. 3.In this view of the matter, the present appeal is also dismissedin light of orders dated 22.5.13 passed in D.B.I.T. Appeal No.48/11and order dated 11.1.08 & 17.5.13 passed in D.B.I.T. AppealNo.13/08, by this court. (KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA),J. (SANGEET LODHA),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