In Nma/659/2009 Of Cummins Generator Technologies India Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Incometax Ahmednagar, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Admit on the following questions :- (I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and specific findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in view of Circular No.6-P dated 6th July, 1968 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the appellate tribunal...
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
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.659 OF 2009
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.365 OF 2009
Cummins Generator Technologies )
India Ltd., )..Appellant
V/s.
Asstt.Commisssioner of Income-tax )
of Ahmednagar Circle )..Respondents
----
Mr.S.N.Inamdar with Mr.Prakash Shah i/by PDS Legal
for the appellant.
Mr.Vimal Gupta with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the
respondents.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 16.02.2009.
PC
1. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned.
Office to register the appeal.
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.365 OF 2009
1. Admit on the following questions :-
(I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and specific findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in view of Circular No.6-P dated 6th July, 1968 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the appellate
tribunal ought to have held that section 40A(2) of
the Income Tax Act 1961 had no application to the
: 2 :
case in as much as the payment of brokerage was
approved by Central Government and there was no tax
evasion involved at all ?
(II) Whether there was any evidence before the
Tribunal on the basis of which it could legally come
to the conclusion that the payment of commission was
"on a very high side" ?
2. Office objections to be removed within a period
of six weeks. Failure to remove office objections,
matter to stand dismissed without further reference
to the Court.
3. Respondents waive service.
(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.