The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd
High Court
16 Oct 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd
Date of order
16 Oct 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 v. The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.389 OF 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax-1....Appellant
vs.
The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd....Respondent.
---
Mr.R.B.Upadhyay, for Appellant.
Mr.Dastoor, Sr.Advocate with Mr.A.K.Jasani, forRespondent.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED: 16[th] October,2008.
P.C.:-
1.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for boththe sides. The case of the appellant before theTribunal was that the transactions of buy back oflease equipments and granting lease of that
equipments to various boards, were sham transactionsentered into only for the purpose of claiming benefitof 100% depreciation. The Tribunal has consideredthat aspect of the matter in the light of thematerial on record and has recorded the finding thatit is not a sham and bogus transaction. One of thegrounds considered for recording that finding is thatwhen the other party is a statutory body the questionof evasion of tax does not arise, and therefore,according to the Tribunal, inference of collusioncannot be drawn. Hence, no question of law arises.
(D.K.DESHMUKH, 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.