Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1808/2010 Of Commissioner Dof Incom...

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.)
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