Case LawHigh Court › The Cit Mumbai City-10 v. M/S.godrej Boy...

The Cit Mumbai City-10 v. M/S.godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co.ltd

High Court 26 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit Mumbai City-10 v. M/S.godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co.ltd
Date of order
26 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
1992-93, 1997-98
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Cit Mumbai City-10 v. M/S.godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co.ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Learned Counsel is unable to point out whether they have preferred any appeal in respect of A.Y.1992-93.

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 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3358 OF 2005 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1447 OF 2005 The CIT Mumbai City-10 ..Appellant Versus M/s.Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd..Respondents ---- Mr.Vimal Gupta and Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for appellant. Ms.Sandhya Vedpathak i/by Manekshah & Sethna for respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 26th March, 2008. PC 1. There is a delay of 90 days. We have also heard parties in appeal. In the light of that, delay condoned. Office to register the appeal. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1447 OF 2005 1. Revenue has preferred the appeal on 2 questions of law as set out in the appeal memo. As far as question-(A) is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in 290 ITR 667. 2. In so far as question-(B) is concerned, the learned Tribunal relied on the order for the A.Y.1992-93 in the case of very assessee. Learned : 2 : Tribunal also placed reliance on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in CIT V/s.Indian Transformers Association reported in 270 ITR 259. 3. The present appeal is in respect of A.Y.1997-98. Learned Counsel is unable to point out whether they have preferred any appeal in respect of A.Y.1992-93. 4. Considering the above, in our opinion, the said questions would not arise and consequently, appeal dismissed. (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