Itxa/969/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-13,Mum v. M/S Indu Oil Co
High Court
05 Dec 2011 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/969/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-13,Mum v. M/S Indu Oil Co
Date of order
05 Dec 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/969/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-13,Mum v. M/S Indu Oil Co, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, 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.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.969 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Indu Oil Co.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
Ms. Aarti Sathe with Kalpesh Turalkar for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 5TH DECEMBER, 2011
P.C. :-
1.Two questions of law are raised by the revenue in the appeal, which read thus:-
(a)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A), which was based on additional evidence, which is not at all justified ?Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A), which was based on additional evidence, which is not at all justified ?
(b)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the findings and conclusions of the CIT(A) as well as that of the Tribunal are perverse ?findings and conclusions of the CIT(A) as well as that of the Tribunal are perverse ?
Perusal of the order of the ITAT shows that CIT(A) after
2 itxa969-08
allowing additional evidence, called for remand report from the assessing officer and on the basis of the remand report submitted by the assessing officer, allowed the claim of the assessee. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.R. JOSHI, 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.