Case LawHigh Court › Roha Dyechem Private Limited v. Deputy C...

Roha Dyechem Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of

High Court 21 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Roha Dyechem Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of
Date of order
21 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Roha Dyechem Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner Of, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Issue: While admitting present appeal the following substantial question of law was framed on 29th July, 2004. "Whether on the facts and inthe circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining an addition of Rs.2,14,614/- to the income of the Appellant on the basis set out in its order?

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 NO. 254 OF 2001 Roha Dyechem Private Limited ..Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent Mr.Rajesh Shah for appellant. Mr.B.M.Chatterjee for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.21stJuly 2008 CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 21st P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. While admitting present appeal the following substantial question of law was framed on 29th July, 2004. "Whether on the facts and inthe circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining an addition of Rs.2,14,614/- to the income of the Appellant on the basis set out in its order? 3. Both the learned Counsel categorically state that the said question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by this Court in Income Tax Appeal Nos.46 and 47 of 1999 decided on 28th June, 2005. (Roha Dyechem Private Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax). Accordingly, in view of the said judgment, we answer the question raised above in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It may be noted here that the learned Counsel for the revenue agrees to the same. KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.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