The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Pune v. Minilec (India) Private Limited
High Court
29 Jul 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Pune v. Minilec (India) Private Limited
Date of order
29 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1, Pune v. Minilec (India) Private Limited, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeals are thus dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.283 OF 2006ANDINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.651 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, PuneVersusMinilec (India) Private Limited
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Mr.S.N. Inamdar for the respondent.
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2009
P.C. :
1.Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The issue sought to be raised in these appeals revolve around expenses incurred on foreign travel by the employees of the respondent. The respondent is a manufacturer and the items manufactured by the respondent-assessee is to be exported by the sister concern. If the employees were deputed to visit different countries to assess the marketability of these products, in that event the expenses incurred on them can legitimately be said to be incurred for the purposes of business. Same view has been taken by the tribunal. We do not find any fault with the view taken by the tribunal. As a matter of fact, the finding of fact is recorded by the tribunal after appreciation of evidence, which cannot be said to be perverse.
2.In the above view of the matter, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in these appeals. The appeals are thus dismissed in limini with no order as to costs.
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.