Case LawHigh Court › Mumbai City-V, Mumbai v. M/S.soft Ice Cr...

Mumbai City-V, Mumbai v. M/S.soft Ice Cream Co.pvt.ltd

High Court 18 Dec 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Mumbai City-V, Mumbai v. M/S.soft Ice Cream Co.pvt.ltd
Date of order
18 Dec 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Mumbai City-V, Mumbai v. M/S.soft Ice Cream Co.pvt.ltd, the High Court (2007) dismissed the appeal.

Issue: The question of law as framed is as under :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that ice cream was not an item of confectionary and chocolate and was not covered by Item No.6 of the XI the Schedule of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the a...

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL The Commissioner of Income Tax, ) Mumbai City-V, Mumbai )..Appellant Versus M/s.Soft Ice Cream Co.Pvt.Ltd., )..Respondents ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. None for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 18.12.2007. PC 1. The question of law as framed is as under :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that ice cream was not an item of confectionary and chocolate and was not covered by Item No.6 of the XI the Schedule of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the assessee was eligible for investment allowance under Section 32A in respect of plant and machinery installed during the relevant year ? . The learned Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Kwality Ice : 2 : Creams (P) Ltd., (2000) 245 ITR 252 (Cal). By the Creams (P) Ltd., (2000) 245 ITR 252 (Cal). Creams (P) Ltd., (2000) 245 ITR 252 (Cal). said judgment it is held that ice cream is not an item of confectionery and it does not fall within the item specified in Schedule XI of the Income Tax Act,1961. 2. We have no reason to take a view different than the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. Consequently, question as framed would not arise. Appeal accordingly, dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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