Itxa/1453/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 v. M/S.goodlas Nerolac Paintsltd., (Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd.,)
High Court
21 Jan 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1453/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 v. M/S.goodlas Nerolac Paintsltd., (Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd.,)
Date of order
21 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/1453/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 v. M/S.goodlas Nerolac Paintsltd., (Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd.,), the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
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
itxa1453-12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.(Kansa Nerolan Paints Ltd.)
..Respondent.
Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the appellant.
Ms. Aarti Vissanji with S.P. Mehta 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 2001-02, the following question of law is proposed to be raised for
our consideration:-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in directing the assessing officer to recompute the disallowance u/s.14A on a reasonable basis after relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. V/s. DCIT (2010), [328 ITR 81]
(Bom) without appreciating the fact that the judgment of Bombay High Court has not been accepted by the revenue and is challenged by filing an SLP in the Supreme Court ? “
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.)
(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.