The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. Ganesh Polychem Limited
High Court
19 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. Ganesh Polychem Limited
Date of order
19 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2005-06, 2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. Ganesh Polychem Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.259 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Ganesh Polychem Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 19[th] March 2013
P.C. :
Office objections waived.
2.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06,
following question of law has been proposed for our consideration.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that direct the AO allow deduction under Section 10B on profits of the current year without setting off the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses ?”
3.Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the issue raised in the present appeal is concluded in favour of the assessee by the order of this
Court dated 25[th] February 2013 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2083 of 2012 passed in respect of the same respondent – assessee for assessment year 2006-07.
4.In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. Sanklecha, 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.