The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -10, Mumbai v. Banner Pharma Caps (India) Pvt Ltd
High Court
20 Jan 2012 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -10, Mumbai v. Banner Pharma Caps (India) Pvt Ltd
Date of order
20 Jan 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax -10, Mumbai v. Banner Pharma Caps (India) Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: P.C. :- 1.The question of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under :- Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the ITAT was right in holding that the remission of liability to the extent of Rs.82,39,111/- towards the cost of fixed assets cannot be treated as...
Decision: For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
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
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 926 of 2011.
The Commissioner of Income-tax -10, MumbaiVersusBanner Pharma Caps (India) Pvt Ltd
... Appellant.... Respondent.
Mr Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr J.D.Mistri, Senior Counsel, with Mr Atul K.Jasani for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 20 January, 2012.
P.C. :-
1.The question of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal reads as under :-
Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the ITAT was right in holding that the remission of liability to the extent of Rs.82,39,111/- towards the cost of fixed assets cannot be treated as income under the provisions of section 28 (iv) of the Income-tax Act?
2.Counsel for the parties state that the similar question raised by the
Revenue in the assessee’s own case in Income-tax appeal No. 7018 of 2010 has been dismissed on 9[th] January, 2011. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A.R.Joshi,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.
EaseValue