Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. M/S.indo French Chamber Of Commerce & Industry
High Court
16 Jan 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. M/S.indo French Chamber Of Commerce & Industry
Date of order
16 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai v. M/S.indo French Chamber Of Commerce & Industry, the High Court (2013) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1447 OF 2012
Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Indo French Chamber of Commerce & Industry
..Respondent.
Mr.A.R. Malhotra for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ.
DATE : 16[th] January 2013
P.C. :
1.In this appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2007-
2008, following question of law has been proposed for our consideration.
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in ignoring the stand of the Revenue that allowing of depreciation on the assets, the cost of which has already been allowed as a deduction on account of application of income, would amount to double deduction in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited V/s. Union of India, 199 ITR 43 ?”
2.Since the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the
case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection reported in 264 ITR 110, we find no reason to entertain the present appeal. The learned Advocate for the Revenue is not able to distinguish the said decision.
3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, 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.