The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai
High Court
07 Jan 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai
Date of order
07 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal.
Issue: P.C. : 1.The question before the Tribunal was whether the change in the method of accounting by the assessee had been adopted bona fide.
Decision: The appeal is hence dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2447 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai ..Versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, Mumbai ......Appellant.VersusCampbell Knitwear Limited, Mumbai........Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 7[th] January, 2010.
P.C. :
1.The question before the Tribunal was whether the change in the method of accounting by the assessee had been adopted bona fide. The Tribunal observed that the changed method of accounting was admittedly followed by the assessee in the succeeding years and was accepted by the revenue authorities from year to year in orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the change was adopted because of market trends prevailing in the prices of quota and the entire premia paid for the purchase of quota was debited in addition to the balance brought forward from the previous years. The change in the method of accounting is found to have been followed in succeeding years and has been
accepted by the revenue authorities. There is thus a finding of fact that the change was bona fide and has been regularly followed. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is hence 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.