Mumbai City V, Mumbai v. Gajra Gears Ltd
High Court
05 Mar 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City V, Mumbai v. Gajra Gears Ltd
Date of order
05 Mar 2007
Assessment year(s)
1984-1985
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mumbai City V, Mumbai v. Gajra Gears Ltd, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal.
Issue: This Application was admitted on 22.4.1999 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable ITAT has erred in excluding Target Bonus amounting to Rs.26,54,988/- from the purview of disallowance under section 37(3A) r...
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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.52 OF 1999
INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.52 OF 1999
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai City V, Mumbai .. Petitioner
V/s
Gajra Gears Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.A.N.Kotangale for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.N.Inamdar for the Respondent.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN&
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATE : 5th March, 2007.
JUDGMENT:(PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This
Application pertains to the Assessment Year 1984-1985.
This Application was admitted on 22.4.1999 on the
following substantial question of law:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in law, the Honourable ITAT has erred in
excluding Target Bonus amounting to Rs.26,54,988/-
from the purview of disallowance under section 37(3A)
relying on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the
case of CIT V/s.Bata India Ltd.?"
2. There are several judgments from different High
Courts. However, our High Court has not decided the
issue. In view thereof, "Statement of the Case" is
called for. Application stands allowed.
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)
(DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.