Case LawHigh Court › M/S Anant & Company v. The Commissioner...

M/S Anant & Company v. The Commissioner Of Income

High Court 04 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S Anant & Company v. The Commissioner Of Income
Date of order
04 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

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.)
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