The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12Mumbai v. M/S. Dani Wooltex Corporation
High Court
07 Jun 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12Mumbai v. M/S. Dani Wooltex Corporation
Date of order
07 Jun 2010
Assessment year(s)
1999-2000
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-12Mumbai v. M/S. Dani Wooltex Corporation, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The Appeal is accordingly 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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2459 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-12Mumbai
Vs.
M/s. Dani Wooltex Corporation
....
Ms Anamika Malhotra for the Appellant.Mr. Subhash S. Shetty for the Respondent.
.....
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD &J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
7 June 2010.
P.C. :
The following question of law has been formulated in the
appeal by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :
“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.34,70,263/- upheld by the CIT(A) without dealing with his findings and conclusions;”
The appeal arises out of the order of the Tribunal for
Assessment Year 1999-2000. We have perused the order of the
Tribunal. The principal issue before the Tribunal related to the
valuation of the closing stock. The Tribunal noted that the stock of
the assessee valued at Rs.72,32,664/- had been in the custody of
the UCO Bank for between fifteen to twenty years. In these circumstances, the Tribunal observed that if the stock in the custody of the bank was excluded, the action of the Commissioner
(Appeals) in restricting the value to 50% at the end of the year was not correct. The finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact on which no substantial question of law would arise. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, 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.