Itxa/2177/2013 Of Oriental Aromatics Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 10(2)
High Court
19 Jan 2016 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2177/2013 Of Oriental Aromatics Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 10(2)
Date of order
19 Jan 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itxa/2177/2013 Of Oriental Aromatics Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax - 10(2), the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 4.The Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 2013
Orient Aromatics Ltd.
.. Appellant
v/s.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 10(2) .. Respondents& Anr.
Mr. K. Gopal a/w Jitendra Singh for the appellant Mr. Abhay Ahuja for the respondents
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.J.
DATED : 19[th] JANUARY, 2016.
P.C.
1.Mr. Gopal, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal states that the main grievance of the appellant is that the Authorities did not record satisfaction that the claim of the Assessee was not correct before invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules for the purpose of dis-allowing expenditure on exempted income under Section 14A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.As indicated in our order dated 15[th] December, 2015, the impugned order does not record any such submission being made on behalf of the appellant at the hearing before the Tribunal leading to the
impugned order dated 26[th] June, 2013. It was contended by Mr. Gopal that the same was urged before the Tribunal though not recorded in the impugned order of the Tribunal.
3.In view of the above, Mr. Gopal now seeks leave to withdraw this appeal and file a Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal to bring on record the facts as argued before the Tribunal at the hearing leading to the impugned order dated 26[th] June, 2013. However, Mr. Gopal also seeks liberty to take such proceedings as are available to the appellant in law, on the order passed on the Miscellaneous Application, if filed.
4.The Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No order as to costs.
(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.