Itxa/1895/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Blow Plast Ltd
High Court
01 Dec 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/1895/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Blow Plast Ltd
Date of order
01 Dec 2008
Assessment year(s)
1996-97
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/1895/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central-Iii, Mumbai v. M/S. Blow Plast Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the 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.2487 OF 2006
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, relating to deleting disallowance of
foreign travelling expenses of the Directors and
employees, we have dismissed Income Tax Appeal (L)
No.1260 of 2005.
3. In so far as question of law (B) is
concerned, the said issue is squarely covered by
the judgment of this Court reported in 245 ITR 203.
Hence, question of law (B) does not survive.
4. In so far as question of law (C) is
concerned, the same is in connection with deleting
additions on account of interest accrued on
advances made to media corporation. The tribunal
relied on assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1996-97,
against which revenue has not filed any appeal.
5. In so far as question of law (D) is
concerned, the same is in connection with deleting
additions on account of late deposit of ESIC
payments. This issue is squarely covered by the
decision in Income Tax Appeal No.14 of 2000 dated
25-11-2000.
6. In this view of the matter, none of the
questions raised by the revenue can be said be
substantial questions of law. Accordingly, the 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.