Ita/29/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Pvt Ltd
High Court
21 Nov 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/29/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Pvt Ltd
Date of order
21 Nov 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/29/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-I v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bom) Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Issue: As against that the issue which is sought to be raised is concerning the higher charges for the machinery and whether the same should be treated as income from other sources.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Income Tax Application No.29 of 2001
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai City I. .. .. Applicant
v/s.
Indian Express Newspapers
(Bom) Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.Parag Vyas for applicant.
Mr.P.J.Pardiwalla with Mr.Vinayak Shety i/by
Poorvi Kamani for respondent.
-----
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 21st November 2005
P.C. :
P.C. :
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Vyas for the applicant.
Mr.Pardiwalla appears for the respondent.
2. Mr.Pardiwalla has drawn our attention to
the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal wherefrom the present Application is
filed. The issue before the Tribunal was with
respect to disallowance of damages for delayed
payment of provident fund and contribution to
E.S.I. As against that the issue which is sought
to be raised is concerning the higher charges for
the machinery and whether the same should be
treated as income from other sources. It is a
complete non-application of mind in filing the
Application inasmuch as the issue sought to be
-2-
raised does not arise at all. Application is
rejected.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, 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.