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)
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.