Case LawHigh Court › M/S Pride Foramer Sa v. Deputy Commissio...

M/S Pride Foramer Sa v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 04 Dec 2013 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · ukhcucis_pg
Parties
M/S Pride Foramer Sa v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
04 Dec 2013
Assessment year(s)
2001-2002
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Pride Foramer Sa v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

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

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2009 M/s Pride Foramer SA. .………. Appellant Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. ..………. Respondent Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) We are concerned, in the instant appeal, with Assessment Year 2001-2002, i.e. Accounting Year 1[st] April, 2000 to 31[st] March, 2001. According to the own showing of the appellant, the proviso to Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act was deleted from the Income Tax Act w.e.f. 1[st] April, 2000. In the present appeal, appellant is seeking benefit of the proviso to Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act. The attempt made by the appellant to read the proviso to Section 32(2) of the Act in Section 44BB of the Act is not sustainable. 2. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. G (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 04.12.2013 04.12.2013
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