The Cit v. M/S.tolani Bulk Carriers Ltd
High Court
05 Sep 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Cit v. M/S.tolani Bulk Carriers Ltd
Date of order
05 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Cit v. M/S.tolani Bulk Carriers Ltd, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: In this Appeal the Appellant has sought to raise the following substantial question of law:- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shipping business is an Industrial Undertaking and in allowing deduction u/s.35D of the IT...
Decision: Hence, the present Appeal also stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
( 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1079 OF 2008
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1079 OF 2008
The CIT .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Tolani Bulk Carriers Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr.N.Joshi with Mr.A.K.Jasani for the Appellant.
Mr.B.M.Chatterji for the Respondent.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 5th September, 2008
DATE : 5th September, 2008
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In this
Appeal the Appellant has sought to raise the following
substantial question of law:-
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the shipping business is an Industrial Undertaking and in allowing deduction u/s.35D of the
IT Act, 1961?
2. Perused the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 14th August, 2008 in Income Tax Appeal No.305 of 2008. For the same reasons as recorded in the
aforesaid order dated 14th August, 2008 passed in Income
Tax Appeal No.305 of 2008 we are not entertaining the
present Appeal. Hence, the present Appeal also stands
dismissed.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,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.
EaseValue