Case LawHigh Court › Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdicgtion In...

Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdicgtion Income Tax Reference v. M/S. Montreal Engineering (Eastern) Ltd

High Court 10 Aug 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdicgtion Income Tax Reference v. M/S. Montreal Engineering (Eastern) Ltd
Date of order
10 Aug 2005
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdicgtion Income Tax Reference v. M/S. Montreal Engineering (Eastern) Ltd, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.

Issue: 5059/Bom/87, forAssessment Year 19741-75, under section 256(1) of the Income-taxAct the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinionat the instance of the Revenue: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was right in law in holdingthat...

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 JURISDICGTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 207 of 1995 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Applicant. vs. M/s. Montreal Engineering (Eastern) Ltd. ..... Respondent Mr. Parag Vyas i/b. H. D. Rathod for Applicant. CORAM: V. C. DAGAAND A. S. AGUIAR JJ. Date: 10[th] August, 2005. P. C. : 1. By this reference, arising out of I.T.A. No. 5059/Bom/87, forAssessment Year 19741-75, under section 256(1) of the Income-taxAct the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for opinionat the instance of the Revenue: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Tribunal was right in law in holdingthat the assessing officer was not justified indisallowing a sum of Rs.1,15,810/- out of remunerationof Rs.1,63,810/- paid to Mr. Skinner, an employee –director of the assessee – company, under theprovisions of sec. 40(c) of the Income Tax Act , 1961. 2. Both counsel appearing for the rival parties agree that the abovequestions have been covered by decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd.[1993] 201 ITR page 567 (Bom.), In this view of the matter boththe questions referred to us is answered in the affirmative i.e. infavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Referenceaccordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (V. C. DAGA J. ) -x- (A. S. AGUIAR 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