Itxa/1808/2010 Of Commissioner Dof Income-Tax,Central-Iii,Mum v. M/S Blow Plasst Ltd
High Court
01 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1808/2010 Of Commissioner Dof Income-Tax,Central-Iii,Mum v. M/S Blow Plasst Ltd
Date of order
01 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
1995-96
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/1808/2010 Of Commissioner Dof Income-Tax,Central-Iii,Mum v. M/S Blow Plasst Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AGK
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1260 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central - III, Mumbai ..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Blow Plast Limited ..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Mr.A.K. Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. In so far as question of law (A) is
concerned the same relates to deleting disallowance
of foreign travelling expenses of the Directors and
employees. The tribunal has relied on its earlier
decision for A.Y. 1995-96 & 1996-97, which order
has been accepted by the revenue. Hence, question
of law (A) cannot be said to be a substantial
question of law.
3. In so far as question of law (B) is
concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the
decision of this Court reported in 254 ITR 203
against revenue. Hence, question of law (B) does
nor survive.
4. In so far as question of law (C) is
concerned, the same is in connection with corporate
club membership fees holding the same to be revenue
expenditure. This issue is also squarely covered
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Otis Elevator Co. (India) Limited V/s.
Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 195 I.T.R.
682 against the revenue.
5. In this view of the matter, none of the
questions raised by the revenue can be said be
substantial questions of law. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(P.B. Majmudar, 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.