The Commissioer Of Income Tax v. M/S. Benett Colemn And Co. Ltd
High Court
25 Jul 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioer Of Income Tax v. M/S. Benett Colemn And Co. Ltd
Date of order
25 Jul 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioer Of Income Tax v. M/S. Benett Colemn And Co. Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sur-tax liability is not allowable as a deduction while computing the income from business for purposes of income tax.
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
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 52 OF 1989
The Commissioer of Income Tax ... Applicant
Versus
M/s. Benett Colemn and Co. Ltd. ... Respondent
Mr. A.S. Rao for the Applicant.
Mr. Jitendra Jain i/by P.D.S. Legal for
Respondents.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.DATED: JULY 25, 2007
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: JULY 25, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Two questions were referred at the instance of
the revenue. On behalf of the revenue, the learned
counsel points out that the tax incidence is less
than four lakhs and in the light of that, Reference
returned unanswered on these two points made at the
instance of Revenue.
. At the instance of the assessee, three questions
were referred. In so far as Assessee is concerned,
the following Reference was made in R.A.
No.369(BOM)/1988. Considering the smallness of the
amount, we do not propose to answer the said
reference. Hence, Reference returned as unanswered.
. Two other questions were referred in R.A. No
2488(Bom)/87 which are as under :
((-2-))
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the
sur-tax liability is not allowable as a deduction
while computing the income from business for
purposes of income tax.
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on Municipal Taxes of Rs.8,468, Painting Expenses of Rs.9,614 and Repairs and Maintenance of
Rs.11,958 incurred in respect of the 2 flats owned
by the assessee and given to its Senior Executives,
was includible for the purposes of computing the
disallowance u/s.40A(5).
. In so far as first question is concerned, the same is answered against the assesssee in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 219
ITR 581.
. In so far as second question is concerned, the same is answered against the assessee in view of the judgment of this court reported in 187 ITR 251.
. The questions are therefore, answered against the
assessee and in favour of the revenue.
((-3-))
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, 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.