Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/5771/2010 Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver...

Itxa/5771/2010 Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Range -8 (2)

High Court 13 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/5771/2010 Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Range -8 (2)
Date of order
13 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
2000-01
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Itxa/5771/2010 Of Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd v. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Range -8 (2), the High Court (2012) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2012 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the provisions of Rs.13,23,450/- made by the appellant in respect of the warranty and field services was not allowable as deduction in computing income under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", is...

Decision: Accordingly, the impugned order in so far as it relates to allowing disallowance in respect of the warranty and field services is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ITAT for fresh decision in accordance with law.

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.5771 OF 2010 Hindustan Door-Oliver Ltd. ..Appellant. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-8(2), Mumbai..Respondent. Mr. J.D. Mistri, senior Advocate with A.K. Jasani for the appellant.Mr. A.K. Saxena for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2012 P.C. :- 1.Whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the provisions of Rs.13,23,450/- made by the appellant in respect of the warranty and field services was not allowable as deduction in computing income under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", is the question raised in this appeal. 2.Counsel for the parties state that since similar claim made by the assessee for assessment year 2000-01 has been allowed by the ITAT and for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 the ITAT while allowing the claim has restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer for qualification of the amount, counsel for the parties state that the dispute in the present appeal may be restored to the file of the ITAT. Accordingly, the impugned order in so far as it relates to allowing disallowance in respect of the warranty and field services is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ITAT for fresh decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off 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