The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.aarti Industries Limited
High Court
25 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.aarti Industries Limited
Date of order
25 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2003-04, 2002-03
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.aarti Industries Limited, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.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.281 OF 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Aarti Industries Limited..Respondent.
Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ.
DATE : 25[th] March 2013
P.C. :
1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2003-04,
following question of law has been proposed for our consideration.
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure incurred on computer software on account of SAP accounting package is allowable as business expenditure ?”
2.Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the issue arising herein
is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by order of this
Court dated 24[th] January 2013 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1285 of 2012
filed by the Revenue in respect of the same respondent – assessee for assessment year 2002-03. For the reasons mentioned in our order dated 24[th ]January 2013 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1285 of 2012, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
3.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.