The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai v. M/S.indian Corporation Financial
High Court
24 Jun 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai v. M/S.indian Corporation Financial
Date of order
24 Jun 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai v. M/S.indian Corporation Financial, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly 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.2486 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Mumbai
Versus
M/s.Indian Corporation Financial
..Appellant.
..Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant.Dr.K. Shivram with Mr.P. Savla for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, JJ.
DATE : 24[th] June, 2011.
P.C. :
1.Six questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this
appeal.
2.As regards first two questions are concerned, counsel for the Revenue states that both the questions are answered against the Revenue by
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.R.F. Limited V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC). Accordingly, first two questions cannot be entertained.
3.As regards, remaining four questions are concerned, ad-hoc disallowances of expenditure made by the assessing officer were deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that all the expenses were duly vouched and were open for verification. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that if the assessing officer was not convinced with any particular expenses, he could have very well make disallowance, but, after verification. The assessing officer has no right to make disallowance on adhoc basis. We see no fault with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Smt.R.P. Sondurbaldota, 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.