The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. M/S. Lever India Exports Limited
High Court
07 Jan 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. M/S. Lever India Exports Limited
Date of order
07 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
2002-03
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. M/S. Lever India Exports Limited, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2448 Of 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai ......Appellant.VersusM/s. Lever India Exports Limited ..........Respondent.
Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.
Mr.P.J. Pardiwala, senior Advocate with Mr.Nishant Thakkar and Mr.Rajesh Poojari i/by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.
DATE : 7[th] January, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The only question urged at the hearing, in support of the appeal by the revenue is the applicability of the provisions of Section 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The question pertains to assessment year 2002-03. The intimation in pursuance of which a refund was granted was dated 20[th] February 2003. The order under Section 143(3) by which refund was withdrawn was passed on 28[th] February 2005. In the judgment of this Court dated 15[th] April 2009 in Income Tax Appeal No.198 of 2009 [Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Bajaj Hindustan Limited], it has been held that Section 234D was brought on the Statute Book on 1[st] June 2003 and
the provision does not have retrospective effect. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal.
2.In view of the answer which has been furnished to the first question, the second question which has been formulated in the memo of appeal, becomes academic. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
(Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.