Case LawHigh Court › Ita/341/2002 Of M/S. Varma Mukherji Priv...

Ita/341/2002 Of M/S. Varma Mukherji Priva Te Ltd v. The Comm. Of Income Tax M Umbai City - Vi, Mumbai

High Court 12 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ita/341/2002 Of M/S. Varma Mukherji Priva Te Ltd v. The Comm. Of Income Tax M Umbai City - Vi, Mumbai
Date of order
12 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
1986-87
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ita/341/2002 Of M/S. Varma Mukherji Priva Te Ltd v. The Comm. Of Income Tax M Umbai City - Vi, Mumbai, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.341 OF 2002 M/s.Varma Mukherji Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner. V/s. The Commissioner of Income-tax Mumbai City - VI, Mumbai .. Respondent. Mr.Jitendra Jain i/by DSK Legal for the petitioner. Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondent. CORAM : DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2007. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondents waive service. By consent taken up for final hearing. 3. In the above application, following substantial question of law is sought to be raised. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee Company was not entitled to the deduction under the provisions of Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 4. The above matter pertains to AY 1986-87. In this case, the Tribunal had followed the judgment of 2 this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Fashion Prints Ltd. (217 ITR 456). The Tribunal in another matter in Dy. C.I.T. V/s. New Reshma Dyeing appears to have distinguished the High Court judgment and held that the benefit of Section 32A was available to the assessee by its order dated 9th April, 2002. In view of the above conflicting decisions, statement of case be called for. 5. The Tribunal is directed to send the statement of case as expeditiously as possible. 6. The application stands disposed of. (DR.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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