Tax v. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal
High Court
14 Mar 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Tax v. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal
Date of order
14 Mar 2017
Assessment year(s)
2009-10
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Tax v. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 5.The appeal is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1634 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax-I
.. Appellant
v/s.
M/s. Western Precicast Pvt. Ltd.
.. Respondent
Mr. Tejveer Singh for the appellantNone for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J.
P.C.
DATED : 14[th] MARCH, 2017.
1.This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 22[nd] January, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10.
2.The Revenue urges the following substantial question of law for our consideration :-
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing the
depreciation @ 80% on cost of the windmill, which in fact, includes the cost of electrical equipment and lines for transmitting the electricity and not for generating the electricity?
3.Mr. Tejveer Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the respondent assessee by the order of this Court in Commissioner of Income
Tax Vs. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. (Income Tax Appeal No. 2125 of 2013) decided on 1[st] March, 2016.
4.In view of the above submission made on behalf of the Revenue, no occasion to examine the proposed question of law arises. Thus, not entertained.
5.The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(A.K. MENON, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, 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.