Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/221/2003 Of Contract Advertising (I...

Itxa/221/2003 Of Contract Advertising (India) Pvt.ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Spel.range-1, Mumbai.and Anr

High Court 04 Oct 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/221/2003 Of Contract Advertising (India) Pvt.ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Spel.range-1, Mumbai.and Anr
Date of order
04 Oct 2004
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/221/2003 Of Contract Advertising (India) Pvt.ltd v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Spel.range-1, Mumbai.and Anr, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed in limine.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.221 OF 2003 Contract Advertising (India) Private Limited .. Appellant. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-1, Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the appellant. Mr.R.V. Desai, Senior counsel with Ms.S.V. Bharucha i/b. P Kapur for the respondents. CORAM : R.M. LODHA, & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2004. P.C. : Heard Mr.A.K. Jasani, the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. In our considered view the Tribunal’s view cannot be faulted in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Karamchand Thapar & Others [222 ITR 112] and (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited [222 ITR 344]. 3. Though the learned counsel for the 2 assessee heavily relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Limited [236 ITR 518], on close consideration we find that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Limited cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 4. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 5. The appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, 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