In The Case Of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Deputycommissioner Of Income Taxreported In 328 Itr 81, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: 3In light of the above, no substantial question of law arise and as such, the appeals are dismissed.
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.283 OF 2016
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10)...APPELLANT
V/s.
M/S.HINDU VENTURES LTD.)...RESPONDENT
WITH
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1288 OF 2015
THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX)-10)...APPELLANT
V/s.
M/S.HINDU VENTURES LTD.
)...RESPONDENT
Mr.Arvind Pinto, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.Kamal Sawhney a/w. Mr.Abhishek Tilak, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM:S.V.GANGAPURWALA &A. M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE
:26[th] JULY 2017
avk 1/2
P.C. :
1These appeals are pertaining to Assessment Year 2001-
2002 and 2004-2005. The issue relates with the retrospective
applicability of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.
2We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. The said issue is covered by the judgment of this court in
the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Taxreported in 328 ITR 81.
3In light of the above, no substantial question of law arise and as such, the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)
avk 2/2
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.
EaseValue