Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/5594/2010 Of The Commissioner Of In...

Itxa/5594/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 18 Mumbai v. Polymer Products Corporation

High Court 18 Nov 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/5594/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 18 Mumbai v. Polymer Products Corporation
Date of order
18 Nov 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itxa/5594/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 18 Mumbai v. Polymer Products Corporation, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.5594 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-18, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Polymer Products Corporation ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1.under :- The revenue has raised a question of law which reads as " Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of law G.P., addition of Rs.5,84,920/- on account of foreign travel expenses, addition of travelling expenses of Rs.5,66,972/- and disallowances of other expenses of Rs.3,28,953/- without appreciating that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to support the claim / expenditure" Perusal of the order of the CIT(A) shows that before the assessing officer, the assessee had explained the reasons for the fall in the gross profit ratio but the same was objected to by the assessing officer without pointing out any reasons for rejecting the same. The CIT(A) further held that as regards the other expenditure which was disallowed by the assessing officer, necessary documents to support the claim of the assessee were furnished by the assessee before the assessing officer and in fact it is the assessing officer who has overlooked those documents which were furnished by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the decisions of the CIT(A) as also the ITAT are based on appreciation of fact and no fault can be with the same. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.R. JOSHI, 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