In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-14 v. M/S.hanumandas Madanlal, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Accordingly, appeal is allowed by answering the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ttm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.730 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax-14
.. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Hanumandas Madanlal
.. Respondent.
Mr.D.K.Kamwal for the appellantMr.Pankaj Toprani for the respondent
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 5TH OCTOBER, 2011.
P.C.
1.Heard. Admit on the following question of law:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT is legally right in holding that the entire amount received on sale of DEPB entitlement does not represent profit chargeable u/s.28(iiid) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”
2. The counsel for the parties state that the above question is covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this court in the case of CIT vs.
Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals reported in (2010) 328 ITR 451(Bom). Accordingly, appeal is allowed by answering the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
(K.K. TATED, 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.
EaseValue