Income Officer, Spl. Inv. Ward-1, Patna v. Inter Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd, Ashok Cinema Building, Patna
High Court
26 Feb 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · patnahcucisdb94
Parties
Income Officer, Spl. Inv. Ward-1, Patna v. Inter Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd, Ashok Cinema Building, Patna
Date of order
26 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Income Officer, Spl. Inv. Ward-1, Patna v. Inter Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd, Ashok Cinema Building, Patna, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal.
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 PATNAMiscellaneous Appeal No.504 of 2008
======================================================
1.Commissioner Of Income Tax Central, Patna
2.Income Officer, Spl. Inv. Ward-1, Patna.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Inter Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd, Ashok Cinema Building, Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)
7 26-02-2013
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
The present appeal arises from order dated 10[th] April 2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Patna Bench at Patna.
While the Department filed an appeal against the order of the C.I.T. (A), Jamshedpur dated 28.11.2003 with regard to assessment years 1986-87 to 1992-93, the assessee/respondent filed cross objections.
The cross objection of the assessee against 100% income with regard to payment received in absence of the proof for supply made against the same was dismissed by the C.I.T.(A). With regard to the claim for sales made to private parties C.I.T.(A) opined that no private person would make payments without
Mahesh/-
receipt of supplies and, therefore, took 10% of the sale to private parties as income of the assessee.
We are satisfied that the view taken by the C.I.T.(A) affirmed by the Tribunal, is a reasonable possible view. The appeal does not arise any substantial question of law.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Navin Sinha, J)
(Shivaji Pandey, 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.