Case LawHigh Court › Itxa/89/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Itxa/89/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Cioty-Viii, Mumbai v. M/S Delshi Botting Co. P.ltd

High Court 17 Dec 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/89/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Cioty-Viii, Mumbai v. M/S Delshi Botting Co. P.ltd
Date of order
17 Dec 2004
Assessment year(s)
1984-85
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Itxa/89/2004 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Cioty-Viii, Mumbai v. M/S Delshi Botting Co. P.ltd, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.89 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Mumbai-VIII, Mumbai.. Appellantv/s.M/s.Delhi Bottling Co.P.Ltd... RespoondentMr.R.Asokan i/by Mr.S.S.Sarkar for appellant. CORAM: R.M.LODHA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED:17thDecember, 2004 P.C.Heard.2. The assessee was allowed 100% depreciation onbottles and cases purchased during the year. Thatwas under challenge before the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. The Tribunal relied upon its earlierorder in the assessee’s own case for the assessmentyear 1984-85. The learned counsel for the revenuecould not show that the order of the Tribunal dated30th April, 2001 for the earlier assessment year1984-85 has not attained finality. In this view ofthe matter, the proposed question (a) in thememorandum of appeal cannot be said to besubstantial question of law.3. As regards the proposed question (b) in thememo of appeal, in the light of the judgment ofthis court, the learned counsel did not address on that issue. 4. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed in limine. (R.M.LODHA, 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