Itxa/34/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Underwater Services Co. Pvt. Ltd
High Court
01 Mar 2005 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/34/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Underwater Services Co. Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
01 Mar 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/34/2004 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I, Mumbai v. M/S. Underwater Services Co. Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2005) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: The questions sought to be raised in this appeal is whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the deletion of addition of Rs.46,01,520/- made on salvage operation expenses was wrong ?
Decision: The Income Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.34 OF 2004
The Commissioner of Income-
tax, Central-I, Mumbai .. Appellant.
V/s.
M/s.Underwater Services Co.
Pvt. Limited .. Respondent.
Mr.R.V. Desai, senior counsel with Mr.R. Asokan for
the petitioner.
CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN &
J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 1ST MARCH, 2005.
P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Perused the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal dated April 21, 2003. The questions sought
to be raised in this appeal is whether the Tribunal
erred in holding that the deletion of addition of
Rs.46,01,520/- made on salvage operation expenses was
wrong ?
2. The Tribunal has allowed the said expenditure
following the decision of earlier assessment year.
The learned counsel for the revenue is unable to
state whether the revenue has challenged the orders
of assessment for the assessment years 1986-1987,
1987-1988 and 1988-1989. Even otherwise the
expenditure of salvage operation expenses is whether
2
allowable deduction or not is a finding of fact and,
therefore, we find no substantial question of law
involved in this appeal.
3. The Income Tax Appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.
(S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 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.
EaseValue