M/S. Wartsila India Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of
High Court
24 Jan 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
M/S. Wartsila India Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of
Date of order
24 Jan 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In M/S. Wartsila India Ltd v. The Deputy Commissioner Of, the High Court (2013) 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 BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1441 OF 2011
M/s. Wartsila India Ltd.versus
..Appellant
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(3), Mumbai..Respondent
--------
Mr. J.D.Mistri, Sr. Adv with Sanjiv M. Shah for the Appellant.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, Sr. Adv i/b Padma Diwakar for the Respondent.
.............
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATE
: 24[th] January, 2013
P.C. :
Not on Board. Mentioned, taken up for
hearing.
2
Heard admit on the following substantial
questions of law:
i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs.6,91,789/- incurred in the Assessment Years 1998-99 and
2002-03 being before the amendment to
Section 74 (effective from Assessment
Year 2003-04) cannot be set-off against
short term capital gains of the
Assessment Year under appeal namely,
2004-05?
ii) Whether on the facts and
in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's order dated 26.02.2010 is perverse, contrary to
weight of evidence adduced by the
Appellant and founded on irrelevant considerations and therefore, all its conclusions, findings and holdings are vitiated and plagued by infirmities inasmuch as no person acting judicially
and properly instructed as to the
relevant law would have come to the
inferences arrived by the Tribunal?
3
To be heard alongwith Income Tax Appeal
No. 1518 of 2011.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.