The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4,Mumbai v. M/S Orbit Exports Ltd
High Court
12 Jun 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4,Mumbai v. M/S Orbit Exports Ltd
Date of order
12 Jun 2015
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4,Mumbai v. M/S Orbit Exports Ltd, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 6.Accordingly the present 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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1110 OF 2009
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1466 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4,Mumbai..Applicant
Vs.
M/s Orbit Exports Ltd.
..Respondent
....
Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Shyam Walve, Advocates for Applicant.Mr. Ashok Patil, Advocate for Respondent.
....
P.C.:
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.DATED : 12[th] JUNE 2015
This Notice of Motion is taken out by revenue to recall the
order dated 13 August 2008 passed by this Court dismissing therevenue's appeal in default.
2.For the reasons stated in affidavit in support, the orderdated 13 August 2008 is recalled and the motion is made absolute
in terms of prayer clause 'A'.
3.At the request of the Counsel, the appeal itself is taken up
for admission.
4.The question of law framed by revenue for ourconsideration reads as under:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the caseand in law the Tribunal erred in treating the lease rentof Rs.46,10,731/- as revenue expenditure disregardingthe fact that it was capitalized in the book of accountsand the Assessee?”
5.It is agreed position between the Counsel that theproposed question of law stands answered by the decision of thisCourt in Income Tax Appeal No. 537/2007 rendered on 19 March2012 in the respondent-assessee's own case. The order dated 19March 2012 raising an identical question was dismissed as notgiving rise to any substantial question of law. Ergo in this appealalso no substantial question of law arises.
6.Accordingly the present appeal is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
[N.M. JAMDAR, J]
[M.S. SANKLECHA, J.]
2 / 2
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.