Itxa/1714/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-City10 v. Koch Chemical Technology
High Court
05 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1714/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-City10 v. Koch Chemical Technology
Date of order
05 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/1714/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-City10 v. Koch Chemical Technology, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1714 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax, City 10..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Koch Chemical Technology..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. K. Gopal with Mr. Jitendra Singh, for the Respondent.
P.C:-
CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR &
M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 5[th] MARCH, 2013.
Heard.
2In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2004-
05 following questions have raised for our consideration.
(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Tribunal in law, was right in holding that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on Goodwill?
(b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in law, was right in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and Commissioner thus erred in passing the revision order?
3Counsel for the parties state that the issue on merits with regard to eligibility of depreciation on good will stands concluded in favour of the Respondent-Assesee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kolkata v/s. Smifs Securites Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 302. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law.
4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed 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.