Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1447/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income...

Itxa/1447/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iv v. Jik Industries

High Court 21 Jan 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1447/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iv v. Jik Industries
Date of order
21 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
2008-09
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/1447/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-Iv v. Jik Industries, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.

Issue: (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in restoring the matter to the file of the AO to make disallowances, when this exercise was already carried out by the A.O. ?

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of 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

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1447 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-IV, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. JIK Industries Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Arvind Pinto for the appellant. Dr. Shivram with Ajay Singh with Paras Savla for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal filed by the revenue relating to assessment year 2007-08, the following question of law is proposed to be raised for our consideration:- (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 8D is only applicant from the assessment year 2008-09 ?Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 8D is only applicant from the assessment year 2008-09 ? (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in restoring the matter to the file of the AO to make disallowances, when this exercise was already carried out by the A.O. ? 2.Since the Tribunal by following the decision of this Court in the matter Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) has restored the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh decision, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (M S. SANKLECHA, 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