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)
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.