Itxa/1289/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune v. M/S Cummins Diesel Sales And Services (I) Ltd., Pune
High Court
27 Jul 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1289/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune v. M/S Cummins Diesel Sales And Services (I) Ltd., Pune
Date of order
27 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/1289/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune v. M/S Cummins Diesel Sales And Services (I) Ltd., Pune, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1289 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Pune
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Cummins Deisel Sales & Services (I) Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant.
Mr. Nishant Thakkar with A.K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 27TH JULY, 2011
P.C. :-
1.This appeal was admitted on 21/1/2009 on the following question of law :-
" Whether in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in law in directing the assessing officer to allow the liability on account of warranty claimed as business expenditure specifically when there was no liability and it is incapable of being quantified with any degree of certainty ? "
In the present case, since the ITAT has restored back the
issue to the file of the assessing officer for fresh determination, in our opinion, it would be just and proper for the assessing officer to pass fresh order on merits. However, the assessing officer, while passing fresh order shall taken into consideration the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. V/s. CIT reported in [2009] 314 ITR 612 (SC). The appeal is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, 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.