Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kinetic En...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kinetic Engineering Ltd

High Court 17 Sep 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kinetic Engineering Ltd
Date of order
17 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
1991-92
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Kinetic Engineering Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1020 OF 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant. Mr.S.N.Inamdar for respondent. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 DATE : P.C. 1.Heard. Perused appeal. 2.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the very same issue was involved in the appeal pertaining to A.Y.1991-92 to 1994-95 and the finding recorded by the assessee has been accepted by the Department. He has also brought to our notice the finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence. So far as advertisement expenses are concerned, they are rightly held to be business expenditure. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the Tribunal is a reasonable and possible view. No fault can be found with the same. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,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