The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai v. M/S.om Intercontinental

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.932 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 18, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Om Intercontinental..Respondent. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the appellant.Mr.Sanjiv M. Shah for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 6 August 2010. P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10 November 2009, pertaining to assessment year 2004-2005, seven questions of law have been formulated. 2.In so far as first six questions of law are concerned, by its impugned order the Tribunal has restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment in the case of Topman Export V. ITO (ITA 5769/Mum/2006 dated 11 August 2009). By the judgment delivered on 29 June 2010 in the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals [ITA (L) No.2887 of 2009], the view of the Tribunal in the case of Topman has been disapproved. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed of, on the request of Counsel for the Revenue and the assessee, by directing the Assessing Officer to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with law and, while passing fresh orders to have due regard to the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (supra). 3.In so far as seventh question of law is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly states that the question is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Gem Plus, (2010) 42 DTR 73 and by the judgment of the Division Bench dated 15 December 2009 in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Syntex Limited (Income Tax Appeal nos.1974, 1976 and 1978 of 2008). In view of the statement made, the seventh question of law will not gives rise to any substantial question of law. 4.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)