Case LawHigh Court › The Cit-6 Mumbai v. M/S.mahindra Ugine S...

The Cit-6 Mumbai v. M/S.mahindra Ugine Steel Co.ltd

High Court 04 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit-6 Mumbai v. M/S.mahindra Ugine Steel Co.ltd
Date of order
04 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit-6 Mumbai v. M/S.mahindra Ugine Steel Co.ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3123 OF 2008 The CIT-6 Mumbai )..Appellant Versus M/s.Mahindra Ugine Steel Co.Ltd.,) Mumbai )..Respondents ---- Mr.J.S.Saluja for the appellant. Ms.Aarti Sathe for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 4.3.2009. PC 1. Revenue is in appeal on the following question :- (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal are justified in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.12,18,562/- on account of bad debts without appreciating the fact that such bad debts arose on account of claims against Government Department and hence cannot be considered as bad debts as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of South India Surgical Corporation Ltd. (287 ITR 62) ? 2. The question in our opinion, is covered by the judgment of this Court in Income-tax Appeal (Lodging) No.1915 of 2007 in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Star Chemicals (Bombay) P.Ltd., and as explained in Oman International. Considering the above, question as framed would not arise. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (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