Case LawHigh Court › Perused Appeal v. It Appeal

Perused Appeal v. It Appeal

High Court 20 Sep 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Perused Appeal v. It Appeal
Date of order
20 Sep 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Perused Appeal v. It Appeal, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [V C DAGA, J]

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

1 IT APPEAL NO.2740-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.377 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-20 Vs.Shri Laxminarayan Agarwal ..Appellant ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the AppellantMr. K. Gopal a/w Mr. Jitendra Singh for the Respondent P.C. CORAM :V C DAGA AND R M SAVANT, JJ.DATE :20[th] September, 2010 Perused Appeal. Heard learned Counsel for the Revenue and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2So far as the first question relating to the value of closing and opening stock is concerned, the same is covered by order of this Court passed in Income Tax Appeal No.2740 of 2009 dated 20[th] September 2010. In that view of the matter, the Appeal on this question is liable to be rejected. 3So far as the second question is concerned, it revolves around Section 80HHC read with Section 28 (iii) (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the matter should be remanded back for consideration afresh, in the light of the Judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals reported in 2010 Taxman-Tax Reports (Volume 192), 435 (Bombay). The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the issue involved in the said 2 IT APPEAL NO.2740-09 Judgment of the Kalpataru Colours referred to in above has no bearing on the issue involved in this Appeal. However the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has no objection for remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. However, we agree on joint submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. It is open to the Tribunal to consider the issue afresh and decide the matter on its own merits as expeditiously as possible .All rival contentions revolving around the issue are kept open. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [V C DAGA, 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