Case LawHigh Court › D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Commissioner Of...

D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar

High Court 10 Jan 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar
Date of order
10 Jan 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In D.b.income Tax Appeal v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Alwar, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal.

Decision: 5.The appeal stands disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B.INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 80/2006 Indian Shaving Product Ltd. Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Alwar now known as Gillette India Limited through its authorized signatory Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar Taxation Manager, aged about 38 years, Global Business Park-Tower ‘A’ Mehrauli- Gurgoan Road, Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana). ----Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar. ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) :Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar. For Respondent(s) :Mrs. Parinitoo Jain. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon’ble Jhaveri J. 10/01/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged thejudgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal hasdismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 2.This Court while admitting the appeal on 23.08.2007, hasframed the following substantial question of law: “When the Appellant’s claim based on re-statement of foreign exchange liability onthe Balance Sheet dated on accrual basiswas Rs.7,36,22,009/- as against thetreatment in books of account were anamount of Rs.2,88,91,067/- being 1/4th oftotal loss was charged off during the year,whether allowing the appellant’s claim ofRs.7,36,22,009/- by the first appellateauthority vide order u/s 250 dated28.08.1995 after elaborate discussion canbe treated a typographical mistakerectifiable u/s 154?” 3.Counsel for the appellant has contended that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case ofKedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax (1971) 82 ITR 0363. 4.Taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court,we are of the opinion that the issue is required to be answered infavour of the assessee. Therefore, we remit the matter back tothe AO who will consider the aforesaid decision of the SupremeCourt and decide the matter afresh. 5.The appeal stands disposed of. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J. Asheesh kr.Yadav/82
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