Itxa/1533/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 v. M/S. Neelkanth Urban Developers Pvt.ltd
High Court
21 Jan 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1533/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 v. M/S. Neelkanth Urban Developers Pvt.ltd
Date of order
21 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-08, 2008-09
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itxa/1533/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 10 v. M/S. Neelkanth Urban Developers Pvt.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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1533 OF 2012
The Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Neelkanth Urba Developers Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Teejveer Singh for the appellant.None 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:-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was right in confirming the order of CIT(A), whereby it is held that the disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the I.T. Act for AY's prior to A.Y. 2008-09 cannot be made as per the method of computation prescribed under Rule 8D of the IT Rules, relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in
itxa1533-12
the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. 328 ITR 81 without appreciating the fact that the judgment has not been accepted by the revenue and an SLP has been proposed ? “
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.