In M/S Anant & Company v. The Commissioner Of Income, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: The above appeal was admitted on 22nd November, 2005 on the following substantial question of law. "Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the indenting commission received do not have any nexus with the profits derived from export of goods without going into the nature of commission and...
Decision: Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
Income Tax Appeal No. 349 of 2004
M/s Anant & Company ..Appellant
vs.
The Commissioner of Income
Tax City I ..Respondent
Mr.Jitendra Jain i/b M/s Thakore Jariwala and Associates
for appellant.
Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for respondent.
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 4th September,2008
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
4th September,2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. Mr.Sahadevan undertakes to file vakalatnama on or
before 8th September, 2008.
3. The above appeal was admitted on 22nd November, 2005
on the following substantial question of law.
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that
the indenting commission received do not have any
nexus with the profits derived from export of goods
without going into the nature of commission and its
-2-
relation to the export activities?"
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to our
notice that the Tribunal has decided the substantial
questions of law based on the judgment of our Court
delivered in the case of IT Vs. K.K.Doshi and Co.
reported in 245 ITR 849 (Bom). The learned Counsel for
the appellant submitted that now the aforesaid judgment
has been over ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in K.K.Doshi and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
reported in (2008) 297 ITR 38 (SC). In the light of the
above on this limited ground that both the questions of
law were answered based on the Bombay High Court judgment
has now been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
hence, we set aside the order of the Income Tax Tribunal
dated 9th August, 2002 and order of the CIT (Appeals) and
remit the matter back to the original assessing officer to
consider the matter only with respect to "indenting
commission" afresh specially in the light of the aforesaid
judgment of the Supreme Court. Appeal stands disposed of
accordingly.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN 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.