Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai City V, Mumbai v. Gajra Gears Ltd

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.)
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