The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai
High Court
28 Feb 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai
Date of order
28 Feb 2013
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai v. M/S.ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai, 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2302 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 10, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
M/s.Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai..Respondent.
Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Rahul Hakani with Mr.Ajay R Singh for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ.
DATE : 28[th] February 2013
P.C. :
1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2007-08,
following question of law has been formulated for our consideration.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and losses of the unit, the income of which is not eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Act cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under Section 10B of the Act ?”
2.Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising in the present
appeal stands concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by
the decision of this Court in the respondent – assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal (L) No.2083 of 2012 rendered on 25[th] February 2013.
3.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.