Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumba...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai v. A.f. Ferguson & Co., Mumbai

High Court 21 Jul 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai v. A.f. Ferguson & Co., Mumbai
Date of order
21 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai v. A.f. Ferguson & Co., Mumbai, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal, which read thus: " (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer disallowing payment of Rs.

Decision: 4.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.

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 JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 87 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-11, Mumbai Vs. A.F. Ferguson & Co., Mumbai ...Appellant. ..Respondent. Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the Appellant. Mr. Porus Kaka with Sameer Chitnis with Rajesh Singh i/by Crowford Bayley & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2011. P.C. Two questions of law raised by the Revenue in this appeal, which read thus: " (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer disallowing payment of Rs. 32,85,000/- made to ex-partner/spouses of deceased partners, by holding that payment has been paid on account of overriding title on the profits and allowing claim of the Assessee? (b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition Rs. 7,41,262/- made on account of difference between the book value of amount lying Exchange Earner Foreign Currency Account on ground that the national accretion can not form part of income in cash system of accounting?" 2.As regards question (a) is concerned, learned Counsel for the revenue states that similar question raised by the Revenue in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax-11 Vs. M/s C.C. Chokshi & Co. in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 209 of 2008 and 193 of 2008 has been rejected by this Court on 25 July, 2008. For the reasons stated therein, the question No.1 cannot be entertained. 3.As regards question (b) is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the ITAT is that the assessee firm had an Exchange Earners' Foreign Currency (EEFC) Account, the balance of which in the current account as on 31st March, 2003 was U.S. dollars 2,38,168.84/- The rupee valuation of this balance amount in the books was Rs.12,672,436/-. If the said balance was restated at the prevailing rate on 31st March, 2003 it would amount to Rs. 12,413,698/-. The assessing officer sought to tax the differential amount, which was deleted by the ITAT on the ground that the assessee has been following cash system of accounting and therefore gain on account of exchange rate can be brought to tax only when the amounts lying in the EEFC account were utilized by the assessee. No fault can be found in the reasoning of the ITAT. Thus, the second question cannot be entertained. 4.Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) ( J.P. DEVADHAR , J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan