Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.national Organic Chemical Industries Ltd

High Court 11 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.national Organic Chemical Industries Ltd
Date of order
11 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. M/S.national Organic Chemical Industries Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: (A)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure on consultancy and advisory fees amounting to Rs.37,39,750/- for modernization project as revenue expenditure being payment made to various persons during the year for moderniz...

Decision: 3.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

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 JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1791 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-1Versus M/s.National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. .. Appellant .. Respondent Mr.Vimal Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Padma Divakar for the Appellant Mr.Ajit Shah with Mr.Srihari Iyer for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR &M.S.SANKLECHA, J.J. DATE : 11[th] FEBRUARY, 2013. P.C. In this appeal by the Revenue, the following questions have been raised for consideration. (A)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing expenditure on consultancy and advisory fees amounting to Rs.37,39,750/- for modernization project as revenue expenditure being payment made to various persons during the year for modernization project even though such expenditure was clearly capital in nature ? 2.The Counsel for the parties states that similar question was raised by the Revenue in Assessee's own case being I.T.A.No.548 of 2011, was dismissed by order dated 5[th] November, 2012. In the above view of the matter, for the reasons indicated in order dated 5[th] November, 2012, we do not see any reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan