In Systems Pvt.ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
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. 534 OF 2003
Computility Computer
Systems Pvt.Ltd. ..Appellant
vs.
1. The Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax and another ...Respondents
Ms.V.B.Patel i/b Mr.Pankaj R.Toprani for appellant
None for respondents.
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN&
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.25th July 2008
25th July 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.
None appears for respondent. However, learned Counsel for
the appellant fairly states that the question of law
involved in the above appeal is clearly answered against
the assesse and in favour of the revenue by the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Britania Industries Ltd.
Vs.Commissioner of Income Tax and another reported in
(2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC). In view thereof the question of
law raised in the above appeal is answered in favour of
the revenue and against the assessee.
(S.J
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN 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.