The Cit-5 v. M/S.walchandnagar Inds.ltd
High Court
18 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-5 v. M/S.walchandnagar Inds.ltd
Date of order
18 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
1990-91, 1998-99, 1996-97
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit-5 v. M/S.walchandnagar Inds.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Question-1 reads as under :- " Whether Hon’ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowances of Rs.03,42,14,914/- on account of commission paid even though assessee unable to prove that the services were rendered by the commission agent ?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JRISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.108 OF 2007
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4423 OF 2007
The CIT-5 ..Appellant
Versus
M/s.Walchandnagar Inds.Ltd., ..Respondent
----
Mr.R.Ashokan with Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the
appellant.
Mrs.Vasanti B.Patel for the respondent.
----
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ
Date : 18.03.2008.
PC
1. Question-1 reads as under :-
" Whether Hon’ble Tribunal was right in
deleting the disallowances of
Rs.03,42,14,914/- on account of commission
paid even though assessee unable to prove
that the services were rendered by the
commission agent ?
2. We have considered the order passed by the
Tribunal for the A.Y.1990-91. While considering
another appeal in respect of the same issue
preferred by the revenue being Income-tax Appeal (L)
No.109 of 2007 we have answered the issue in favour
of the assessee by order dated 17.3.2008. In the
light of that the said question would not arise.
: 2 :
3. The 2nd question as framed reads as under :-
" Whether Hon’ble Tribunal was right in
directing that Erection, Job work and
services should be treated as separate
business and excluded from the ‘profit &
Gain of Business’ for the purpose of
computing deduction under section 80HHC in
terms of explanation (baa) to section
80HHC of the I.T.Act, 1961 ?
. We find that this very issue is also an issue for
the A.Y.1998-99 which was the subject matter of
Income-tax Appeal (L) No.109 of 2007. This question
was not raised in the 2nd Appeal which we have
dismissed on 17.3.2008. We also find that issue was
an issue for the A.Y.1996-97. The revenue has not
preferred any appeal for that year. Nothing has
been brought to our notice that for the same issue,
a contrary view shall be taken based on material on
record.
4. In the light of the above, appeal dismissed.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4423 OF 2007
. Considering the cause shown, delay condoned.
Office to register the appeal.
: 3 :
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)
(R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,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.