In Itxa/190/2005 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-13 v. M/S Maharashtra State Co-Op Marketing Fed Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: (b) Whether onthe circumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal erred in cancelling the demand ofRs.20,05,599/- being additional tax raisedby the assessing officer on account ofprima facie adjustments u/s.
Decision: In the result, appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2005
The Commissioner of Income-tax-13,Mumbai.
V/s.M/s.Maharashtra State Co-op.Marketing Federation Ltd.
... Appellant.
... Respondent.
A.S.Shivsharan for the appellant.
S.N.Inamdar for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 16th April 2009.
P.C. :----.Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Perused appeal papers.
2.By this appeal, the following question of
law is sought to be raised by the Revenue.
"(a)Whether onthecircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal erred in upholding the order ofCIT(A) and observing that no additions/adjustments have been made to the returned‘Nil’ income by the assessing officerwhile passing the order of intimationu/s.143(1)(a) of the Act?
(b)
Whether onthe
circumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal erred in cancelling the demand ofRs.20,05,599/- being additional tax raisedby the assessing officer on account ofprima facie adjustments u/s. 143(1)(a)read with section 143(1A) of the Act?
(c)Whether onthecircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal erred in holding that prima facieadjustment being demand of set off oflosses made by the assessing officer u/s.143(1)(a) read with section 143(1A) arenot contemplated as prima facie adjustmentu/s.143(a)(a)?
3.Considering the concurrent findings of
question of law is involved.
4.
In the result, appeal is dismissed in
limine with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(V.C.DAGA 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.
EaseValue