Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/1858/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/1858/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , - 5 Mumbai v. Essar Projects Ltd

High Court 28 Jan 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1858/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , - 5 Mumbai v. Essar Projects Ltd
Date of order
28 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
1998-99
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Itxa/1858/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax , - 5 Mumbai v. Essar Projects Ltd, the High Court (2013) 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.
sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1858 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Essar Projects Ltd. ..Respondent. Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the appellant. Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, senior Advocate with Atul K. Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 28TH JANUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal for the assessment year 2002-03, the revenue has formulated the following questions of law for the consideration of this Court. “ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was justified in sustaining the order of the CIT (A) in allowing the portionate guarantee commission related to investment as business expenditure and the balance related to project is to be capitalized to the project accounts ? 2.It is agreed by the counsel on both sides that similar question has been raised by the revenue against the same assessee for the assessment year 1998-99 in Income Tax Appeal No.452 of 2010 and the same has been dismissed by us today i.e. 28[th] January, 2013. For the reasons stated therein, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, 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