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.)
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.