Case LawHigh Court › The Cit-5 v. M/S.walchandnagar Inds.ltd

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)
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